Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT (ORPINGTON)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for Orpington in the room of William Donald Massey Sumner, esquire, O.B.E., appointed a Judge of County Courts.

Mr. Lipton: I do not think this Motion should be allowed to go through without a strong word of criticism about the action of the Government in delaying this by-election. Matters have reached such a pitch—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If it is desired to oppose the Motion, I must put it off till half-past Three.

Mr. Lipton: I beg to give notice of my intention to oppose the Motion at half-past Three.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it in order to ask a question about it?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps, at half-past Three; I do not know the nature of the question.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITION

Greyhound Racing (Tax)

Mr. A. Lewis: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a Petition to this honourable House on behalf of those members of the public who are interested in the sport of greyhound racing. I have no vested interest in this sport, but I want to draw the attention of the House to the very unfair and discriminatory position that now pertains with regard to greyhound racing.
The position is that all bets that are placed upon totalisators at greyhound

racing tracks carry an 11 per cent. tax, but no such tax is levied on the same sort of totalisators at horse tracks throughout the country. In addition, the bookmakers at greyhound stadiums where these totalisators are operated have also a very heavy licence fee to pay, which is not, again, paid by the very same bookmakers who go to horse race track meetings.
There are some 110,000 signatures to this Petition, and your Petitioners request that the 11 per cent. tax on bets placed through the greyhound totalisators, and the licence duty on bookmakers at greyhound stadiums where such totalisators are operated, should be removed, and that greyhound racing should, therefore, be placed upon the same basis as all the other betting sports so far as taxation is concerned.
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that greyhound racing shall have removed from it the present discriminatory tax of 11 per cent. now imposed upon all bets made through totalisators upon greyhound racecourses, and that they further pray that greyhound racing shall be placed on the same basis as other sports involving betting which have no similar tax or bookmakers' charges levied upon them.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Insurance Companies

Mr. Grey: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many life insurance companies there are; and how many of them have their head offices in London.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): One hundred and two British companies and 23 overseas companies carry on life assurance business in the United Kingdom. Of the former, 65 have their registered office in London.

Mr. Grey: Will the President of the Board of Trade bring forcibly to the notice of these companies the fact that, like building societies, they can operate efficiently and perhaps more cheaply outside London? As building societies are doing a pretty good job in the provinces, will the right hon. Gentleman tell


the House what steps he can take to ensure that this example is followed? Is he aware that this kind of commercial activity is a very important factor in the economy of the country and that, therefore, offices as well as industry generally should be restrained in London?

Mr. Erroll: I must point out to the hon. Member that a registered office is not necessarily a head office. I appreciate the points he is making, and I put them to insurance companies some time ago. One must also remember that to a very large extent insurance is obliged to follow the industrial and commercial activity of the country and must, therefore, have its offices conveniently sited for such purposes.

Bohuns Hall Farm, Tollesbury

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received an application for a certificate to develop an oil refinery at Bohuns Hall Farm, near Tollesbury, Essex.

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir.

Mr. Harrison: If my right hon. Friend does get such an application, will he give it the widest publicity before giving his decision? Will he also ensure that the developer, if such should apply, is a bone fide developer and not a land speculator?

Mr. Erroll: If an application is made, I shall, of course, consider it very carefully. But I can give no undertaking to make the application public, because that is not the normal practice.

Commonwealth Countries

Mr. Walker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what research has been carried out by his Department as to the estimated imports of Commonwealth countries over the next decade, with a view to publishing the results as guidance to British exporters.

Mr. Erroll: I doubt whether any estimates of this kind would be of enough value to British exporters to justify the work involved in making them. The Board of Trade already publishes a great deal of information about the particular requirements of Commonwealth markets and the prospects in them, and

it will always be glad to consider what help it can give to exporters on any particular problem.

Mr. Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the staffs of many of the High Commissioners' offices in London are prepared to provide such figures which, if collated, would indicate that the imports of the Commonwealth countries are liable to increase over the next decade to about £3,000 million? Surely that is something which should be brought to the attention of British industrialists and exporters? Will my right hon. Friend consider creating a Commonwealth export council just as he has an export council for the Western Hemisphere and the European export council?

Mr. Erroll: I have considered the proposal made by my hon. Friend, but in my opinion estimates relating to a broad category of imports by such Commonwealth countries would contain sufficiently wide margins of error in the forecasts as to be of relatively little value to British exporters. I have considered the question of a Commonwealth council, but as the needs of Commonwealth countries vary so much from one part of the world to another, I do not think that a Commonwealth council, as such, would achieve the same effect as is achieved by the E.C.E. or the Western Hemisphere exports council.

Hotel Tourist Industry, Scotland

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the importance of extending the Scottish hotel tourist industry, what evidence he has collected during the last six months directed towards the advisability of making loans, on favourable terms, for building, extending and improving hotels in Scotland.

Mr. Erroll: None, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware of the special meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science which is being organised in Scotland for 1963? Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the meantime, circularise the hotels and inform them with a view to their taking special advantage of the opportunities which this meeting in 1963 will offer?

Mr. Erroll: I think that the British Travel and Holidays Association would be the most effective body to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. MacArthur: Is not it a fact that facilities of this kind already exist through the Highland Tourist Development Company Ltd., in the Highlands and near the Highlands? Can my right hon. Friend say to what extent the hotels in the Highlands and nearby have availed themselves of these facilities?

Mr. Erroll: I am glad to endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend about the good work of the Highland Tourist Development Company Ltd. Regarding what it might do about the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), as the meeting to which he referred is not until 1963, I should have thought that there is time enough to take it into account.

Northern Region

Mr. Grey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the factors that have caused the recent increase in the number of unemployed in the Northern Region; and what direct methods he is introducing to remedy the position.

Mr. Erroll: I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that the increase in unemployment in the Northern Region between 11th December, 1961, and 15th January, 1962, was due mainly to seasonal factors, including the registration of Christmas school-leavers. More than half the increase in unemployment among men was in construction; there was also a substantial increase in iron and steel. I will continue to make all possible use of the powers provided by the Local Employment Act and the Town and Country Planning Act to encourage the development of further industry in areas of high unemployment in the Northern Region.

Mr. Grey: This is the same kind of reply. I wonder Why the President of the Board of Trade bothers to come to the House to give it. Why does he not record it on a tape recorder? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in March, 1961, he promised that there were 14,500 jobs in prospect for Durham, in June that there were 20,000 in prospect

for the North-East, and in December that there were 27,500 jobs in prospect for the North-East? I think he has turned up more figures than a bingo announcer. I suggest that the figures do not make—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The supplementary question is out of a order for a variety of reasons.

Mr. Grey: May I ask him further—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Stonehouse.

Factory Extension, Willenhall

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will grant a development certificate to Messrs. Harris and Sheldon for the extension of their factory in Willenhall which will enable another factory, which is out of date, to be shut down, and higher productivity and better working conditions to be achieved.

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir.

Mr. Stonehouse: Does it encourage higher productivity and lower costs for this firm to be forced to operate in two separate establishments a mile-and-a-half apart? Why is it not allowed to develop on its own land which is not required for any other use?

Mr. Erroll: Because we wish to encourage new industries to go to the north-east of England.

Mr. Stonehouse: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply and the failure of the Minister to look into this question and to give a fuller reply, I intend to raise the question on the Adjournment tonight.

Bodmin-Wadebridge Area

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade what new industries have been established in the Bodmin-Wadebridge employment exchange area since January, 1961; and how many employment vacancies have been thus created.

Mr. Erroll: Two. About 370 jobs will be provided by these and other developments in the area; some of these jobs have already accrued.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of these jobs are at Bodmin, which is useless to my constituents who live 10 or 15 miles away where there is a lack of employment? Will he look at this matter again to see whether he can put the rest of the area back under the provisions of the Local Employment Act?

Mr. Enroll: I am aware of the difficulties experienced by the constituents of my hon. Friend, but I do not think that the travel to work difficulties are as great as he suggests.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Blyth and Seaton Valley

Mr. Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what new jobs are expected to be available in Blyth and Seaton Valley in the next six months as a result of their being scheduled as Development Areas;
(2) what developments have taken place in regard to the siting of new industries since Blyth and Seaton were scheduled as Development Areas.

Mr. Erroll: Two firms have shown an interest in Blyth and Seaton Delaval since these areas were made development districts last December. I could not give further details without disclosing confidential information about the intentions of individual firms.

Mr. Milne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his succession to the Presidency of the Board of Trade considerably raised the hopes of my constituents that something would be done for the north-east of England? Is he aware that we are a kindly and tolerant people but that we shall be watching his efforts on our behalf very critically? May I say to the right hon. Gentleman—if it is not too presumptuous to do so—that if he turns his back on some of the policies advocated by the Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet he might be more successful in satisfying us?

Mr. Erroll: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall consider all the points which he has made.

North-East

Mr. Ainsley: asked the President of the Board of Trade what additional areas have been added to the list of places in the North-East under the Local Employment Act.

Mr. Erroll: Prudhoe and Haswell were added in October, 1960, and Blyth and Seaton Delaval in December, 1961.

Mr. Ainsley: Does the Minister realise that the problem is in west Durham? Does he recall that his Parliamentary Secretary paid a fleeting visit to the Crook and Brandon area? Does he know that in the Durham Employment Exchange area the unemployment figure is now double what it was twelve months ago, and that the unemployment problem arises mainly in the Brandon Urban District area? Is he aware that there is a first-class site for industrial development astride the main railway line and the A.1, and will he seek to bring new industry to this area where the coal mining industry is rapidly closing down?

Mr. Erroll: I am well aware of the problem, particularly the problem created by the impending closure of pits. In a comprehensive Written Answer on 14th December, I provided an answer which covered the areas of most parts of the North-East about which hon. Gentlemen and my hon. Friends have rightly been expressing concern. If hon. Gentlemen will look at my answer again, I think they will see that we are doing a great deal, and I assure everyone concerned that I am far from being complacent about it.

Commander Kerans: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the whole unemployment situation in the North-East is assuming alarming proportions, especially in my constituency? Will the Government take serious steps to look into this matter and alleviate the growing distress and anxiety which exists in the Durham area?

Mr. Erroll: I hope that the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) will consider what has just been said.

Mr. Jay: Does the Minister realise that as long as the Government follow a general economic policy which is


designed to hold back the whole economy the North-East Coast is bound to suffer?

Mr. Erroll: Not necessarily.

Mr. Boyden: asked the President of the Board of Trade what sums are to be allocated for new industrial development in the North-East in 1962–63; how these sums compare with 1961–62; and what percentage these allocations form of the total sums for Local Employment Act expenditure in the years in question.

Mr. Erroll: Expenditure approved for projects in the North-East between 1st April and 31st December, 1961, amounted to £1·7 million, or 7·6 per cent., compared with £1·6 million, or 3·2 per cent., in the year ended 31st March, 1961. Estimates of future expenditure under the Local Employment Act are not subdivided by regions.

Mr. Boyden: This is a very disappointing figure when one considers that £38 million has rightly been approved for expenditure on Merseyside and Clyde-side. In view of the unemployment problem in the North-East, far more ought to be pumped into the area.

Mr. Erroll: We have been pumping it in at over double the rate.

Jamaican Cigars

Mr. Fisher: asked the President of the Board of Trade what decision he has reached upon the new Cuban cigar import quota; and what effect he estimates this will have on the imports of Jamaican cigars into this country.

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement about the future quota for Cuban cigars, in view of the anxiety felt by those employed in the Jamaican cigar industry.

Mr. Erroll: The 1962 import quota for Cuban cigars remains at the 1961 level. The position of Jamaican cigars in the British market, to which they have free access, is thus unchanged.

Mr. Fisher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply is better than it might have been but not as good as it should have been? Will he bear in mind the high level of unemployment in Jamaica, and that it might have been

both wise and right to help unemployment there and our own Commonwealth producers as opposed to those of a Communist country by reducing the Cuban quota?

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. While Jamaican cigars have unrestricted access, I do not think that it would be right to reduce the Cuban quota, because the Cubans are already in serious arrears with their debt and other payments to us and they must be provided with some opportunity of earning the currency to meet their obligations.

Mr. Russell: Will my right hon. Friend also consider any other ways in which he can stimulate the consumption of Jamaican cigars in this country?

Mr. Erroll: I do not think that the consumption of cigars is a matter for me.

Shipyards, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the unemployment caused in Aberdeen shipyards by the recent reduction in orders for shipbuilding, ship-repairing and engineering; and what steps he has taken this winter to find remedies for these financial and economic problems.

Mr. Erroll: I am aware of the reduction in the employment being provided by shipbuilding and ship-repairing firms in Aberdeen. But nevertheless the average rate of unemployment was lower in 1961 than in 1960. I shall continue to encourage new industry for the district.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister not ashamed of being unaware of our ancient traditions and of not treating this island nation as the great shipbuilding nation that it once was? Will he take urgent steps to see that British shipbuilding yards are put in a position to compete with the foreigners in this respect?

Mr. Erroll: Shipping and shipbuilding are matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. What I am concerned with is the provision of industry to provide employment, and that is why I am not only aware that unemployment in Aberdeen has gone down in


1961 but am glad about it. It also serves to answer the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).

South-West Durham

Mr. Boyden: asked the President of the Board of Trade if the recent increase of unemployment in south-west Durham has been covered by new industrial proposals since 1st January, 1962.

Mr. Erroll: I regret the recent increase in unemployment in south-west Durham, but I hope that many of those now unemployed will find work on the new projects and expansions which we look forward to seeing in the Bishop Auckland group of employment exchange areas and on the neighbouring trading estate at Aycliffe and which are estimated by the firms concerned to be providing about 2,000 jobs.

Mr. Boyden: Can the Minister explain why the factory that was to be built on the Fielder Bridge site has not materialised? Is there any connection between this and the I.C.I.-Courtaulds merger, which is rumoured in the district? Can he throw any light on this?

Mr. Erroll: I certainly could if given notice.

Japan

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the balance of trade between the United Kingdom and Japan for the 12 months up to the most recent accounting period.

Mr. Erroll: This information is available from the Trade and Navigation Accounts.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the only way I could raise this Question on the Order Paper? Will he agree that these figures disclose an expanding trade between this country and Japan, and also an expanding market in Japan of which exporters could take good advantage at the present time?

Mr. Erroll: I wholly subscribe to my hon. Friend's supplementary question, and I am glad that he found a way of getting it into HANSARD.

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the current negotiations for an Anglo-Japanese trade treaty.

Mr. Erroll: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) on 6th February.

Mr. Ridsdale: As there is great scope for long-term trade between Great Britain and Japan at the present time, would the President of the Board of Trade not agree that the conclusion of a long-term treaty is very urgent? Would not a mutual exchange of visits between our businessmen and Japanese businessmen help to iron out any of the difficulties that might arise through unfair competition and trading practices?

Mr. Erroll: Negotiations for a commercial treaty are in hand at the present time. Sir Norman Kipping of the Federation of British Industries visited Japan in the autumn of last year. His report, I imagine, is now being studied by British businessmen, and, of course, those who wish to visit Japan are free to do so.

Mr. Rhodes: Will the right hon. Gentleman not make a trade treaty with Japan until the present export subsidies there are discontinued?

Mr. Ellis Smith: And the workers are given better wages.

Mr. Erroll: We have repeatedly made clear to the Japanese our attitude towards export subsidies, and this will be one of the matters taken into account.

Mr. Hirst: It is more necessary than just to make sure. We should be certain that no trade agreement is entered into as long as double-pricing practices are pursued.

Mr. Erroll: It would not be proper for me to give a categorical undertaking of the kind required by my hon. Friend, but I am aware of the feelings he has expressed and the other views that are held.

European Economic Community

Mr. Walker: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that United Kingdom exports to the Commonwealth are £800 million greater than exports to the Common Market, and that between 1950 and 1960 United Kingdom exports to the Commonwealth rose by more than £440 million whilst exports to the Common Market countries rose by less than £280 million, if he will give priority to obtaining a Commonwealth trade conference to discuss methods of protecting and increasing Commonwealth trade before negotiating further with the European Economic Community.

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. The Government's reasons for deciding to apply for membership of the E.E.C., provided that satisfactory terms could be negotiated, were fully explained in the Prime Minister's statement on 31st July of last year and in the debate on 2nd and 3rd August.

Mr. Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the trends of the fifties, which were very favourable to Europe and unfavourable to the Commonwealth continue during the next decade, our exports to the Commonwealth in 1970 will be £1,900 million whereas to the Common Market only £800 million? Would not it be a good idea to discuss with the Commonwealth methods of increasing this figure even more, so that if certain methods were agreed on we could in our negotiations with Europe take into account future prospects of Commonwealth trade instead of just present Commonwealth trade?

Mr. Erroll: As regards Commonwealth trade, our application to join the Common Market does not mean that we are any the less interested in developing Commonwealth trade, but rather the reverse. We are constantly in touch with the Commonwealth capitals on ways and means of increasing our trade with them, and this process should be able to continue both now and in the future.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the accuracy of the figures contained in the Question, and are these figures not really significant? Do not they indicate that it is far better to rely on the Commonwealth than take

the chances contained in associating with the European Economic Community?

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the figures contained in the Question are substantially correct, but they do not tell the whole story.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: As my right hon. Friend said that our application to join the Common Market does not mean any reduced interest in Commonwealth trade, can we take it that Her Majesty's Government will resist any attempt to include us in an agreement which would mean discriminating in favour of Continental European countries against overseas Commonwealth countries?

Mr. Erroll: My hon. Friend knows that negotiations are in progress, and so I am not prepared to answer that question in any detail.

Mr. Jay: Is not that really a rather evasive answer? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman at least assure us that he is not one of those people who regard Commonwealth trade and the principle of free entry of Commonwealth goods into the United Kinkdom as things lightly to be sacrificed?

Mr. Erroll: We have always made it plain that we are determined to get a square deal for the Commonwealth, and we are also interested in making sure that our exports go to Commonwealth countries as well.

Chester-le-Street

Mr. Pentland: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many additional jobs are expected to be provided in the Chester-le-Street constituency in 1962; and how many inquiries from industrialists about development in the constituency are currently under his consideration.

Mr. Erroll: The hon. Member's constituency extends over all or part of the Chester-le-Street, Birtley, Houghton-le-Spring and Washington Station employment exchange areas. About 2,100 additional jobs are expected to be provided in these areas, but I cannot say how many of them will arise in 1962. Two firms are currently considering development in these areas.

Mr. Pentland: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I appreciate that reply? Can he confirm or deny that a large firm which wished to build a new factory in the Chester-le-Street constituency was discouraged by his Department because of the Government's present financial policy?

Mr. Erroll: I can neither confirm nor deny.

Hire Purchase (Judgment)

Mr. Darling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the judgment in the House of Lords in the case of Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. Ltd., he will introduce legislation to amend the Hire Purchase Acts in order to remove the legal anomaly referred to in the judgment.

Mr. Erroll: I am studying the implications of this judgment and will certainly take it into account when I consider the Report of the Molony Committee on Consumer Protection which I hope to receive shortly.

Mr. Darling: Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that this is a very urgent matter which ought not to be left to the Molony Committee's recommendations, which may not be put into effect for a considerable time? Does he realise that the effect of this judgment is to suggest to hirers who cannot for good reasons, keep up their payments that they ought to default and break their contracts in order to avoid the penal provisions of the law, which Parliament never intended should be penal?

Mr. Erroll: This is certainly a very important matter, and for that reason the Government are not going to be rushed into making a premature decision.

Information Agreements

Mr. Darling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Restrictive Trade Practices Act to provide for the registration of information agreements.

Mr. Erroll: The subject of information agreements is being covered by the general review of monopolies and restrictive practices legislation which I have put in hand.

Mr. Darling: When may we expect some results from this review being put in hand? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his Department is now cluttered up with advisory committees which never seem to report?

Mr. Erroll: The advisory committees are getting on very well with their work. I made it plain that this review would take time because of the complexity and intricacy of the subject, and I said that I thought that it was unlikely that the review would be completed before the end of this year.

Cotton Industry

Sir J. Barlow: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that employers and unions in Lancashire are disappointed with his policy regarding the cotton industry arising from his visit on 8th December, 1961; and what action he proposes to take to improve the situation in the industry.

Mr. Erroll: When I visited Manchester I reminded the industry of the steps the Government had taken to help the cotton industry, both by limiting imports and by assisting reorganisation and re-equipment. I also undertook that, subject to our international obligations the Government would consider taking further action to restrain imports if disruption was threatened. I do not accept that the industry has any cause for being disappointed with this very positive policy. I am glad to note that imports to the United Kingdom have continued to drop from the high levels to which they rose following the exceptional conditions which existed in 1960.

Sir J. Barlow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any action he took to restrict imports of grey cloth and yarn seems to have been quite ineffective and the trade as a whole is very disappointed at the little action he has taken?

Mr. Erroll: I do not agree with my hon. Friend's statement, because it is not only the action I took but also the action taken by the industry itself to secure inter-industry agreements restricting imports from Commonwealth countries. The fall in imports last year was very striking. Quarter by quarter it went down from 166 million square yards in the first quarter, through 138 million and


117 million, down to only 100 million square yards in the fourth quarter. This should give reasonable grounds for optimism in the industry.

Mr. Rhodes: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that many of us are disappointed with the competitive ability of this industry, despite the millions of pounds of public money which have been poured into it in the last two and a half years?

Mr. Erroll: I am not going to pronounce on an expression of opinion of that sort.

Mr. J. T. Price: May I follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes)? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people in Lancashire have come to the conclusion that the Government's only attitude towards the cotton industry is to regard it as an expendable unit in the general picture of overseas trade? Coupled with that, the view is seriously held by quite well informed people that the much lauded action of the Government in bringing before the House the Cotton Bill in 1958 was nothing more than an election bribe to prepare the shop window for the general election in 1959?

Mr. Erroll: No. The 1958 Cotton Bill was nothing of the kind described by the hon. Gentleman. Those in the industry who care to study carefully the very extensive measures of import restriction or control all round the world to safeguard the Lancashire industry will realise how much we have done for the industry and the considerable extent to which we have safeguarded its future prosperity.

Mr. Kenyon: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that merchants are importing cotton goods from Spain and Portugal and selling them in packets which have been used for many years to contain British goods? Will he take steps to bring an end to this practice?

Mr. Erroll: Merchants are free to import within the restrictive limits, and Spain is one of the countries to which restrictions apply.

Mr. G. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that that does not answer the question he was asked? He was asked if he will take steps to prevent

British merchants—salesmen, retailers and wholesalers—putting Spanish goods into packages which over the years have been known to be associated with British goods only?

Mr. Erroll: I am sorry. I did not hear the supplementary question fully enough. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for repeating it in his usual loud voice. The fraudulent use of packages or the misdescription of the goods contained in them are matters which can be attended to by existing legislation.

Mr. G. Brown: Will the Board of Trade deal with it?

Mr. Erroll: Anybody can deal with it, as well as us.

Sir J. Barlow: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied with the investment in new equipment in the cotton industry in view of the lack of confidence in the industry, and the nature of the Government's policy towards the import of grey cloth and yarn; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Erroll: I am aware that investment in new equipment has been deterred to some extent by fears of competition from low-priced imports: but the marked fall in the level of imports over recent months, coupled with the limitation of imports of cloth from certain countries, should encourage firms to take advantage of the financial help available under the Cotton Industry Act, 1959.

Sir J. Barlow: In view of the difficulty of restricting the importation of cloth, will my right hon. Friend look into his powers under the anti-dumping legislation as they exist at present?

Mr. Erroll: Importation of cloth is substantially restricted at present, as I pointed out in answer to a previous supplementary question put by my hon. Friend. As regards the anti-dumping legislation, the law can be applied if an applicant makes a successful application for it to be applied.

Easington

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the nature of the representations he has received


from the Easington District Council on the subject of new industry in the area of their administration.

Mr. Erroll: The Clerk of the Easington Rural District Council wrote to the Board on 10th January asking that renewed efforts should be made to induce new industry to come to the Easington area, and in particular to Peterlee. In reply he was assured that we would do all we could to encourage suitable firms to go to this area.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Local Employment Act has failed? It has not reduced unemployment as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor prophesied it would. In view of the many problems of unemployment, not only in the North-East but in the Midlands and elsewhere, nothing short of a boost by the Government in the direction of capital investment and expansion will be of any avail. Why do not the Government, instead of employing deflationary measures, have regard to the present situation and try to deal with it in a sensible way?

Mr. Erroll: All-round inflation would not necessarily mean that factories and industries would go to the places in which the right hon. Gentleman is interested. The Local Employment Act has certainly not failed. It has done a great deal of good work already, but I am not complacent about those places which are still very much my anxious concern.

Mr. Pentland: Could the same answer be made in regard to Easington or any other areas in the North-East as the right hon. Gentleman gave to my supplementary on a previous Question?

Merchandise Marks (Prosecutions)

Mr. Burden: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions took place in 1961 for failure to comply with the requirements of the Merchandise Marks Act.

Mr. Erroll: It is open to anyone to take proceedings under the Merchandise Marks Acts, and I have no record of the total number of such proceedings in 1961. The Board of Trade prosecuted in nineteen cases.

Mr. Burden: Will not my right hon. Friend try to accumulate these figures, because they show how many manufacturers and which type of manufacturer are disregarding this very important Act, which was passed to ensure that proper quality and fitness for purpose were maintained in merchandise sold to the public here and overseas?

Mr. Erroll: I do not think that the amount of work involved would be justified by the relatively small results which, as far as I can see at present could be achieved.

Mrs. Slater: Does the right hon. Gentleman take the same attitude on this question as he takes to the question of foreign goods being put into British packages? Is not that a deliberate deluding of the public as to the type of goods they are buying? Should not his Department be taking some action about it?

Mr. Erroll: If the hon. Lady or my hon. Friend will give me the details of any particular matters I will see that they are looked into.

Blankets

Mr. Burden: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that some branded blankets on sale to the public, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Gillingham, are so weak that they are liable to come apart in handling; and if he will make inquiries with a view to prosecution under the Merchandise Marks Act.

Mr. Erroll: I am making inquiries and will write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Burden: Will my right hon. Friend give greater attention to this matter? If blankets are sold and are, as the Shopper's Guide stated, so weak that they are liable to come apart in ordinary handling—and are sold in the home market—some action can be taken. But if they are sold in overseas markets they automatically set up a consumer resistance to British merchandise on a very much wider scale than the merchandise which is actually affected.

Mr. Erroll: I shall be glad to include what my hon. Friend has said in the inquiries I propose to make.

Mr. Gower: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that any aggrieved private citizen can initiate proceedings under existing legislation? Should not a strong, self-reliant people like the British be prepared to act in this way in matters of this kind?

Mr. Erroll: My hon. Friend is certainly right, and I hope that the public will use the rights which they possess under the appropriate legislation.

Crook

Mr. Ainsley: asked the President of the Board of Trade what projects have been started in the Crook area since the operation of the Local Employment Act.

Mr. Erroll: One project has been completed and an industrial development certificate has been given for another. Work has started on six projects in the Bishop Auckland group of employment exchange areas, within travel-to-work distance of Crook.

Mr. Ainsley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this local employment exchange area the rate of unemployment is nearly 8 per cent.? While he takes his figures from the Bishop Auckland area, the west is actually the problem area. Will he look closer into this matter, especially as it concerns the closing of the mining industry and in view of the urgent need for new industries in the Crook area?

Mr. Erroll: I will look at what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I would remind him that we take into account prospective colliery closures.

Mr. Popplewell: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the large number of Questions on the Order Paper today in connection with the growing unemployment in the North-East, having in mind the statement of a Parliamentary Secretary last year that there were about 27,000 jobs in the pipeline? In view of the growing number of unemployed in the North-East and the fact that this area is anxious to see some results from that statement about there being 27,000 jobs in the pipeline, when does the right hon. Gentleman hope that the number of jobs will outweigh the growing number of unemployed in the North-East?

Mr. Erroll: I could not give a forecast along the lines of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. In general, I am fully aware of the concern of the North-East Coast, as is evidenced by the large number of Questions this afternoon, and we are doing all we can in the Board of Trade to bring more jobs to the North-East Coast.

Advanced Factory, Shotts

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Miss MARGARET HERBISON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, when work will begin on the erection of the advance factory at Shotts.

Miss Herbison: On a point of order. Might I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? This is the third time that this Question has appeared on the Order Paper and has not been reached. Again it will have to be withdrawn. In view of the fact that Petitions are presented during Question Time, as happened today, and the other matters also take up the time of Questions, what consideration can you give to our meeting at 2 p.m. instead of 2.30 p.m. for Questions?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter really for the House and not for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (STATEMENT)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister whether the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regarding the policy of Great Britain with regard to the agriculture policy of the Six, made in France whilst on an official visit to the French Minister of Agriculture, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Prime Minister not aware that the Minister of Agriculture said that Britain would be prepared to accept the agricultural provisions of the Six? Will this not mean a "stomach tax" on Commonwealth food imported into this country in order to subsidise European farmers? Does the Prime Minister approve of that?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that that is a right deduction from what the Minister of Agriculture said. He pointed out that there are different methods of supporting agriculture which are followed, and I think I should remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, in his statement to the Six on 10th October, said that we would need a long transitional period, not only in the interests of United Kingdom agriculture, but to allow—if any increases in food prices are to follow—for them to be brought about gradually.

Mr. G. Brown: Does the Prime Minister accept the Press report which, I gather, came from the Press conference which the Minister gave, in which he said, firstly, that the differences between our point of view on agriculture and that of the Six were enormous; secondly, that the standard of living of the British farmers is high and no one suggested that that advantage should be sacrificed; and thirdly, that the Common Market must be accepted as a whole, including agriculture? Does the Prime Minister accept that as a statement of Government policy, and does he think that it leaves much room for negotiation?

The Prime Minister: When he said that the differences were enormous, he was pointing out that we have a system of support which, broadly speaking, although by no means entirely, is carried by the taxpayer and the consumer, whereas the Continental system is almost entirely on the consumer. With regard to the other question, it is best to see how these negotiations proceed and then we shall have to make our judgment.

Mr. Jeger: Does the Prime Minister not think that it is rather a pity that we should learn about our agricultural negotiations from Press reports of speeches made abroad by the Minister of Agriculture? Would it not be a help to those who, like myself, are in favour—if the terms are right—of our going into the Common Market if we could have full and frank statements in the House to enable us to make up our minds without prejudice? Would the Prime Minister not agree, for example, that even professional co-operators might be in favour of co-operation in

Europe if they were informed a little more about it?

The Prime Minister: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view, and I think that the whole of what he has said and what we feel can be summed up in his words "if the terms are right". The object of the negotiations is to see if we can get terms which are right.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMIT MEETING

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether a proposal has now been made by Mr. Khrushchev for a meeting at an early date between the Heads of Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take to implement fully the policy outlined in his message to Mr. Khrushchev that Heads of Government should accept personal responsibility for directing the disarmament negotiations; and if he will propose that the McCloy-Zorin agreement on disarmament principles should form the basis for the personal direction of the negotiations and the holding of a summit conference in London at an early date.

The Prime Minister: Mr. Khrushchev has not proposed that there should be a three-Power Summit Meeting. President Kennedy and I have suggested that the Foreign Ministers of the three Powers should meet in advance of the Eighteen-Power Conference. We are awaiting Mr Khrushchev's reply. As regards the Eighteen-Power Conference, I shall concern myself personally with the strategy of the negotiations and with any new proposals for disarmament which are put forward. The statement of principles agreed between Mr. McCloy and Mr. Zorin was welcomed by the United Nations in its Resolution of 20th December, 1961, endorsing the establishment of the Eighteen-Power Committee. This Resolution recommended that the Committee's negotiations should be on the basis of the principles set out in the agreement between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I hope that this recommendation will be fulfilled.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not this matter becoming rather complicated? Would not the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if Mr. Khrushchev should modify his proposals about the Eighteen-Power Conference and suggest a conference of the Heads of State of the United States, United Kingdom, France and Russia, he would see that the United Kingdom placed no obstacle in the way? Would he also take note of the fact that it has been reported that General de Gaulle has now suggested that if such a conference is held, he, too, would like to be consulted?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The correspondence is a little complicated because there are so many people writing letters to each other. I think that it would be better not to have letters cross again but to wait until Mr. Khrushchev replies to the letter which I sent to him and to a similar letter which President Kennedy sent to him only two or three days ago.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I appreciate the Prime Minister's informative reply. Does he not agree that there are now greater prospects of a limited settlement than there have been for many years? If he does, should not he and President Kennedy take more of an initiative than they have done in showing more good will towards these prospects?

The Prime Minister: I am not usually accused of being lacking in optimism. In recent years I have tried to show that I think that these meetings can be made valuable, and I have not lost my hope that they will be. But I still think that, in this rather complicated state of the correspondence, it would be better to wait and see whether we can sort it out.

Mr. G. Brown: Is the Prime Minister now able to answer the question which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition put to him last week and which he did not then answer? My right hon. Friend asked him whether his difficulty in accepting Mr. Khrushchev's proposals was concerned with whether there should be eighteen Heads of Government or whether that would be too many. Will he now say whether the difficulty is connected with either of those and, if so, which?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman read my letter to Mr. Khrushchev, I think that he would understand what the position of the British Government was.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA CIVIL SERVICE (NON-DESIGNATED OFFICERS)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has given to the petition sent to him by the Civil Service Association of Kenya; and whether, in view of conflicting statements issued by the Government, he will state whether non-designated overseas officers in the Kenya Civil Service are accepted as the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has repeatedly made it clear that his responsibility in respect of non-designated officers serving on overseas leave terms in East Africa generally are of a different nature from his responsibilities in respect of designated officers. Since non-designated officers were both recruited and are employed directly by East African Governments it must be the responsibility of those Governments to reach a final decision about their future. My right hon. Friend has recently asked these Governments to inform the various staff associations, in reply to representations which he has received from them that he has learned with regret that the East African Governments are unlikely to implement certain proposals which he made last November for retirement benefits for these non-designated officers including provision for voluntary retirement. The petition from the Civil Service Association of Kenya to which the hon. Member refers was received in the Colonial Office on 12th February and is at present under consideration.

Mr. Thomas: I thank the Prime Minister for that detailed reply. Is he aware that the non-designated officers hold the conviction that the former Colonial Secretary, now the Leader of the House, committed himself in December, 1960, to protecting them and that Her Majesty's Government accepted a responsibility that when independence was being negotiated they would not


wash their hands of these people who have given faithful and loyal service to the Crown? Will he bear in mind that many of us would feel that if these people were betrayed the honour of the House would also be betrayed?

The Prime Minister: What I would call the formal, legal responsibility is laid down in the White Paper. There is a moral responsibility on Her Majesty's Government to do all that they can to make local Governments face what we believe to be their proper course. That we shall continue to try to do.

Mr. Wall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in the negotiations in December, to which he referred, an undertaking was given that if there were to be any major change the meeting would be reconvened? Can he see that the meeting is reconvened in the near future?

The Prime Minister: I will consult my right hon. Friend about that.

Dr. King: Is the Prime Minister aware that the distinction is not between officers who were recruited in this country and those who were recruited abroad, since some of the previously non-designated officers have been given the status of designation? Will he look into this matter very seriously, because an injustice is being done to the men who remain non-designated?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend on this detailed point. My answer dealt with the broad considerations which Her Majesty's Government follow.

Mr. Wade: Would the Prime Minister agree that assurances were given in 1960 and that there is obviously some doubt about the reliability of those assurances? Would he not agree that it is in the interests of Kenya as well as of these overseas officers that nothing should be done to give the impression that the British Government will let them down?

The Prime Minister: Of course that is so, but paragraphs 7 and 12 of the White Paper make the position clear. It is also very important that these Governments should face their responsibilities and take them on their own shoulders.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that until this matter is settled satisfactorily, he himself will retain a personal interest in it, because it seems that the honour of the Government and the honour of the House are involved in the many promises made on this issue?

The Prime Minister: Of course, I will continue to be in close touch with my right hon. Friend in whose judgment and skill at managing these matters I have absolute confidence.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister to what extent he consulted the Prime Minister of New Zealand before agreeing that nuclear tests should take place at Christmas Island.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Prime Minister on what date he informed the Government of New Zealand that he had agreed with President Kennedy that preparations should be made for United States nuclear tests on Christmas Island; and what reply he has given to the representations made by the Prime Minister of New Zealand in the interests of the populations of Samoa, the North Cook Islands and Tokelau.

The Prime Minister: I have for some months kept the Prime Minister of New Zealand informed about these matters. He expressed disquiet about the fallout danger to New Zealand dependencies in the Pacific but, at the same time, he made it clear that he would not object to a decision to make the facilities available on Christmas Island provided there were reasonable assurances about the minimising of fallout dangers. These I was able to give him.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Prime Minister seen the latest statement in which the Prime Minister of New Zealand says that if the tests proceed there is an immediate problem of radioactive fallout? Is he aware that New Zealand will not be affected by itself but that, since a considerable amount of dairy produce and meat are sent to this country from New Zealand, it is in the interests of New Zealand, all the people living in that part of the world, and Britain that these tests should not take place?

The Prime Minister: The last statement of the Prime Minister of New Zealand which I have seen was on 9th February, when he said that the Anglo-American decision to prepare for atmospheric tests, though not welcome in New Zealand, had been forced upon them by Russian action.

Mr. Hughes: He said a lot more than that.

Mr. Brockway: The right hon. Gentleman said that the New Zealand Government had been informed, but were there consultations? Does it not appear that the exchange of opinion between our Government and New Zealand must have been very restricted and almost irrelevant, because the Prime Minister of New Zealand has expressed his alarm that Christmas Island should be used for this purpose, as he wishes to protect the populations of those islands which have been under the tutelage of the Government of New Zealand?

The Prime Minister: I could no) publish them, for it would be contrary to practice, but I have been in consultation or discussion with the Prime Minister of New Zealand as far back as 8th November, and again on 19th November and 27th December and since the Bermuda meeting.

Sir J. Duncan: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that these proposed tests are of anti-missile missiles and, therefore, defensive? Should they not therefore be welcome, provided that there is no danger to human life?

The Prime Minister: I have tried to set out the considerations which were in our minds when President Kennedy and I reached this decision. We made a statement on it and we were asked many questions. I have nothing to add except that it would be with the greatest reluctance that we might find ourselves forced to do this and only in order to protect the West from finding itself in a position of inferiority which, I believe, would not be conducive to the cause of peace.

Mr. M. Foot: When the Prime Minister says in his original Answer that he has given the Prime Minister of New

Zealand information about the extent of the fall-out which may be involved in this new round of tests, does he mean that how many tests should be conducted has already been agreed? If not, how can be give such information? Will he give the House of Commons exactly the information about the possibilities of fall-out which he has given to the Prime Minister of New Zealand?

The Prime Minister: I have given the House a statement, and I repeat that, if these tests have to be made, they will be of a very minor character compared with the massive tests which have been made by the Russians, and I am satisfied that the danger from fall-out is minimal.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory answers which have been given, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

NATIONAL FINANCE

Government Offices (Cleaners)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mrs. BRADDOCK: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Her Majesty's Government have decided to put the cleaning of Government offices out to private contract.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): With permission, may I reply to Question No. 94.
In certain buildings, particularly in London, it has been found that it is much cheaper and no less efficient to employ contract cleaners rather than a direct cleaning force.

Mrs. Braddock: In view of the fact that in one office in London at least it has been decided that it was not cheaper and it was not nearly as efficient to let the cleaning out to contract, is not this a matter which should receive a lot more consideration? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great concern in offices about security and about the cleanliness of the offices, and ought not the whole subject to be debated in the House before there is a complete change of policy by the Treasury?

Sir E. Boyle: I should, of course, be very glad to consider any representations which the hon. Lady cares to send me on the matter. I understand that the saving is likely to be about 25 per cent. and, in general, the service from the contract cleaners is as good as it is from the directly employed staff.

Mrs. Slater: Does the hon. Gentleman know that the Civil Service union which represents these women is very concerned and, in a document which we have received, puts the case that not only does it cost the Government more because the contractors very often pay a few more coppers to the women, but that, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the cleaning, in general, being satisfactory, at least one Department has gone back to the direct employment of women cleaners because it was not satisfied with the new arrangement?

Sir E. Boyle: I have definitely heard of cases where the service has improved since the contractors took over. All I can say is that, with the present level of expenditure, I think that it is right that the public should get good value for money in all aspects of the service.

Mr. Burden: Can my hon. Friend give, in round figures, what the saving is likely to be?

Sir E. Boyle: No, I cannot give the total. What I can say, as I said in

answer to the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) is that the saving is likely to be about 25 per cent. In one particular case I have heard of, there is likely to be a saving of about 44 per cent.

Mr. Callaghan: If the Financial Secretary can tell us the percentages, does not he know the figures?

Sir E. Boyle: I cannot give the exact net figure without notice. Indeed, I think that it would be unwise to make too rapid a calculation. I have given the percentage figure, and I repeat that I think it important that the taxpayer should have good value for money right along the line.

Mrs. Braddock: This is a matter which cannot be dealt with by question and answer. In view of its great importance and the effect which the decision is having in Government offices in the London area and outside, will the Minister undertake to prepare a report for the House so that we may have a very full debate and obtain all the necessary information.

Sir E. Boyle: I should not like to pledge myself about a report, although I agree that it is not a suitable subject for question and answer. If the hon. Lady wishes to raise the matter in debate, there are, I think, opportunities open to her.

PREVENTIVE JUSTICE (ABOLITION OF POWERS)

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Justices of the Peace Act, 1361; to abolish all other jurisdictions to exercise the same or similar powers of preventive justice; and for purposes connected therewith.
By common consent, the Justices of the Peace Act, 1361, is antiquated, obscure and oppressive. Although that is generally agreed to be so, the Act is put into operation very frequently. In 1958, according to a Home Office statement, no fewer than 5,831 cases were brought, and successfully brought, so that orders requiring entry into recognisances, or imprisonment in default, were made.
Whatever differences of view there may be in the House about many of the matters and courses which have given rise to proceedings under the Act, all will agree, I think, that, if it is necessary in the year 1958 to bring 6,000 cases of this kind they ought to be brought under a modern Statute which we have recently considered, into which we have introduced whatever safeguards are thought to be necessary, and which at least is not obscure.
There is not time, in a short speech, to go into many of the fascinating matters which lie behind this legislation, but I think that I should recall to the House the origin of it. In 1361, 600 years ago, the Act was brought in to deal with offenders, rioters, barrators and vagabonds. There is some dispute about what the Act enacted because, whereas the Norman French edition said that it was applicable to persons who were not of good repute, the English version recited that it was applicable to persons of good repute, the word "not" having somehow or other been omitted from the translation.
This of itself might have created some embarrassment in the courts, which, having the two versions before it, would not know whether the Act applied to criminals or to people who were not criminals, until Lord Goddard, then Lord Chief Justice, decided that it meant exactly the same whether the word "not" was in or was not, saying, at

the same time, affirming a dictum of Lord Coke, that this was preventive jurisdiction and that, whatever objections there might have been to it, it must now be recognised as part of the law of the land. If it is part of the law of the land, I hope that the House will consent to repealing the law as it stands, even if it thinks it necessary to enact a modern Statute giving similar powers.
What is the proper application of the Act? There was a case in which it was invoked against Tom Mann in the days of the Hunger Marches. That was quite appropriate, because in 1361 there were a lot of returning soldiers from the Hundred Years' War. Pensions were rare. The Welfare State had not been thought of. Jobs were scarce. Unemployment pay was non-existent. Soldiers who had spent many years abroad came home to find little for them, and they were wandering abroad feeding themselves as they could. The Act was brought in in those circumstances to deal with those conditions.
The magistrate who tried Tom Mann said this:
Neither defendant is charged before me with any offence, nor is it necessary to prove that they have been guilty of any offence. I have merely got to say whether or not there has been proved a condition of things, which makes it reasonably probable that the defendants in this case may be guilty of conduct which is calculated to provoke a breach of the peace …
There are a lot of "mays" and "probables" in the whole of that statement. What is certain is that a person can be sent to prison without having committed any offence.
That has been applied to others as well as to Tom Mann. It was applied to George Lansbury—perhaps the most eloquent and persuasive pacifist that this House has ever contained. It is a little ironic that, if something had to be done to prevent Lansbury from speaking in favour of votes for women, the authorities had to rely on a 600-year-old Statute made to deal with marauding ex-soldiers.
Although there was no need to charge an offence, still less to prove one, nevertheless, people were called upon to enter into recognisances in circumstances in which there could possibly be imagined a possible hypothetical speculative danger to the peace at some future


time. But in quite recent times it has been applied to cases in which it was not even contended that any breach of the peace was contemplated, was intended, had occurred, or was reasonably probable.
It has been applied to young persons, about whom we have recently legislated, that the courts have no power to inflict a sentence of imprisonment, unless no other conceivable course is open to them. Yet, following the recent protests against nuclear warfare, I know of one case, and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department knows of very many more, in which people whose offence was to obstruct the highway—for which the maximum penalty is 40s.—were, at the end of the case, called upon under this antiquated and, I should have thought, obsolete power to enter into recognisance, although, quite obviously, the court knew that this would be so offensive to their consciences that they would refuse to do it. They were then sent to prison for long periods. They included young people between the ages of 17 and 21—people in respect of whom there is a statutory prohibition on commitment to prison unless no other course is open.
I do not know whether any hon. Members at this moment consider that a young girl aged 17 years and 3 months, who sat down in the road outside a military station and was fined 40s.—the maximum—for that offence, was such a person that all the ingenuity, discretion and judicial nature of our courts were unable to find another method of dealing with her than to send her to prison for two months for refusing to enter into a recognisance—a refusal which she felt bound in conscience to make—not to commit an offence which would invoke a maximum penalty of a fine of 40s.
I wonder whether there is anyone who thinks that that was right. There are some distinguished people who, it would appear, do not think it was right, and I would like to adopt the argument of one distinguished personage who must have had people of this kind in mind when the statement was made. I quote from The Times of 27th December last:
It is natural that the younger generation should lose patience with their elders, for their seeming failure to bring some order and security to the world, but things will not get

any better if young people merely express themselves by indifference or by revulsion against what they regard as an out-of-date order of things.
Angry words and accusations certainly don't do any good, however justified they may be.
I wonder whether hon. Members recognise that quotation. It is from Her Gracious Majesty's Christmas address to the nation on Christmas Day. Surely we ought to look again at this way of dealing with generous, maybe impulsive youth doing their best to address their minds to what is admittedly a difficult situation. Surely we can do something better with them than send them to prison in circumstances where it is admitted that no offence has been committed or contemplated.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State will not mind my saying that I am sorry to see that he is the only representative of the Home Office present. I have no reason to question his good faith, and I do not. But his experience is very limited. I would have liked to see a senior member of the Department here. Not perhaps to answer—this is not the occasion for it—but to hear and consider what was said. I wonder whether the Home Secretary himself has ever brought his mind to bear on these matters.
It is extremely doubtful whether many of these recent—I do not say convictions, because they are not convictions—sentences of imprisonment were correctly inflicted at all. They were, in my opinion, an abuse of the Statute. No charge was made, no notice was given, no application was made by the prosecution. All that was done was to tack on this additional order so as to increase the statutory maximum penalty that the court could inflict for the offence charged. It may be that I am wrong, but I think that it will be recognised that there is strong reason to think that I may be right.
My Motion does not do very much. It really calls only for an examination. I hope I have said enough to persuade the House to give me leave to introduce the Bill.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Profiting by the arguments which were deployed two years ago


against his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has broadened his front so as not to be outflanked by the common law. But his gain in logic is his loss in merit, because what he now proposes is to abolish altogether these powers of preventive binding over and to put nothing in their place.
At least the hon. Member for Oldham, West, facing the suggestion that he was abolishing a protection against undesirable activities, was bold enough to say this:
My answer is… that if we repeal it the situation may remain very much the same because the courts have always assumed power, under the common Jaw, to bind over people appearing before them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1960; Vol. 616, c. 52.]
This is a very much more drastic proposal than was brought forward by the hon. Member's hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West; much more serious in its consequences. With the old Act alone as his target, the hon. Member for Oldham, West delighted the House with historical references which ranged through the centuries from Pontius Pilate to the French Revolution, from Poitiers and the Black Prince to George Lansbury and Sir Oswald Mosley. At the end, he rebuked us with the comment, "History is not funny". To the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne I would say today that history is not all serious, either. Of course, sometimes we can find, wrapped up in the way things are, that a great constitutional principle is at stake. There was the famous case of the Ship Money, but this desirable vigilance declines into perverse ingenuity when it detects outrage in ordinary convenient practice in the enforcement of the ordinary criminal law.
The phrase "preventive justice" is one which we can make sound very sinister and full of dark portent if we wish to. I ask the House to look at the realities of this matter. For 600 years, England has been the powerhouse of freedom, proclaiming its example all round the world. The English people have lived peaceably with this Act, and with the common law which probably preceded it, and found them practicable, sensible and harmless. Our inheritance of freedoms to which the hon. Member

referred has not been just a devotion to the cause of freedom alone, but our talent for combining freedom with order so that freedom survives and does not collapse in anarchy. All are equal before the law only if all equally submit to the law.
Of course, it is true that freedom depends, liberty depends, also, on the certainty of the law. Around this fixity of outline there are channels of freedom remaining open all through our ordinary lives. They can remain open only if they are not abused and exploited constantly by a tiny minority. The "Peeping-Tom"—not mentioned by the hon. Member—the writer of the anonymous letter, the person who uses the telephone or the post to harass people, or who just harasses people personally by following them and pestering them, all these persons raise problems which, after a certain point, cannot be ignored.
Then, we either have to elaborate a code of behaviour in the streets, in the home and garden because a "Peeping-Tom" often operates from there, in the use of the telephone, in the use of the post and in many other fields which now remain open, or else we have to have a mild residual procedure like the one under attack today.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Mild?

Mr. Bell: I shall come to that.
It is applied only to the unbalanced minority. In reality it is not a penalty, but a mere giving of sureties for good behaviour not counted as a conviction yet raising a right of appeal to a superior court. It could not be less and might easily be much more. If it went it would have to be replaced by an elaborate prescription which the inhabitants of this country would find very tiresome indeed.
Then there is the numerically very large number of people, neighbours or members of the same family, quarrelling with each other to the point where one or more go to complain in the local police court. There were 5,000 in I960, two-thirds of all the people affected by this power. Is it not better for the magistrates to soothe these people down either before or after a trial rather than to find for one against the other on very unsatisfactory evidence and send them back to live with each other? In those


cases, where, usually, very little has actually happened, tempers are working up to breaking point. The sensible verdict is, "Not guilty, but do not do it again", which is precisely what recognisances all round amounts to.
If, unhappily, one of the parties objects on principle to this sedative procedure, he can appeal to quarter sessions under the Act we passed in 1956. All this is the very small stuff which makes up the whole bulk of the operation of this power and, of course, no one goes to prison on a fancied question of principle. The contemporary heart of this problem is the political case. George Lansbury was not asked to give sureties of good behaviour because he was a pacifist, but because he was encouraging and inciting the Women's Suffrage Committee to a campaign of militancy which included putting bombs in pillar boxes and pranks of that kind, which the powers of law and order cannot allow.

Mr. S. Silverman: He did nothing of the sort.

Mr. Bell: Now it is the Committee of 100. Some of those who incite to and organise massive breaking of the law take part in the operation themselves and so become liable to direct prosecution. Some may not. I cannot see what sacred principle of liberty requires that they should remain uninhibited in organising the breakdown of law and order from behind the scenes. Nor do I see why, when one of these operations is announced in advance, and mass support is invited for known illegality, it should be necessary for the forces of law and order to stand by powerless until the damage is done.

Mr. S. Silverman: That is what they did.

Mr. Bell: The majority also has some rights. There is ample scope in this country for lawful demonstration and lawful protest. Why object, as the hon. Member did, to the imposition of imprisonment for refusal to be bound over when the offence itself perhaps would be punishable only by a small fine? When small fines are imposed on the members and supporters of the Committee of 100 they do their best to go to prison for non-payment. The last batch gave no names and addresses so that the

fines would not be paid by relatives nor recovered by distress on goods, so that (they could be sure of going to prison for non-payment.
Does the hon. Member suggest that punishment by fine should be abolished? These people are going to prison for one reason, and one reason only. They want imprisonment, they want prosecution, they resent fines and they resent binding over, because their object is martyrdom.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why give to to them then?

Mr. Bell: I do not want to give it to them. I want to reserve power to make something else possible.
I thought that the hon. Member would expressly disdain any desire to help this campaign of civil disobedience. I thought that the help which he was giving to them would be inadvertent. But apparently that is not the case. By his proposal he is making it easier for them to carry on their activities.
I should like to explain to the House what they are. A year ago The Times reported that Lord Russell had said at a Press conference that the sit-down demonstrations outside the Ministry of Defence were only a dress rehearsal for future, more positive, manifestations of non-violent civil disobedience, adding:
Other action we take may be such as the authorities cannot tolerate".
The Rev. Michael Scott added that if, by their action, they held up work in establishments like Aldermaston the authorities would not be able to ignore them. Another member of the Committee said to the Press conference:
We want to put the Government into such a position"—

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: On a point of order. Is this a Ten Minutes Rule Bill?

Mr. Speaker: It is an application pursuant to the Standing Order.

Mr. Bell: I have spoken for nine minutes. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne spoke for fifteen.
Another member of the Committee said:
We want to put the Government into such a position that they either have to gaol thousands of people or abdicate".


All sober and responsible people know that civil disobedience as a political manœuvre is fatal to free institutions. They do not want Government and Parliament to abdicate their responsibility for the peace and tranquility of the realm. Even if the hon. Member had a case on the broad merits, which I do not believe he has, even if it were expedient at some time to bring forward a modern Act to replace the old Act, I ask the House not to do it and not to allow it to be done at a time when such an action

could not fail to be construed as abject surrender to the open challenge of civil disobedience. I ask the House to refuse leave for the introduction of the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided; Ayes 73, Noes 240.

Division No. 92.]
AYES
[4.2 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Owen, Will


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hunter, A. E.
Parker, John


Awbery, Stan
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pavitt, Laurence


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Kelley, Richard
Probert, Arthur


Bowles, Frank
Kenyon, Clifford
Rankin, John


Brockway, A. Fenner
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reynolds, G. W.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Cliffe, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Snow, Julian


Evans, Albert
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Finch, Harold
Marsh, Richard
Stonehouse, John


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mellish, R. J.
Stones, William


Forman, J. C.
Milne, Edward
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchison, G. R.
Swingler, Stephen


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Monslow, Walter
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morris, John
Warbey, William


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mulley, Frederick
Wilkins, W. A.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Holt, Arthur
Oram, A. E.



Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oswald, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Hale and Mr. M. Foot.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Aitken, W. T.
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Allason, James
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gammans, Lady


Arbuthnot, John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Gibson-Watt, David


Barber, Anthony
Cleaver, Leonard
Gilmour, Sir John


Barlow, Sir John
Cole, Norman
Glover, Sir Douglas


Barter, John
Collard, Richard
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Batsford, Brian
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Bevins, Rt. Hon Reginald
Costain, A. P.
Godber, J. B.


Biffen, John
Coulson, Michael
Goodhart, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
Courtney, Cdr, Anthony
Gower, Raymond


Bishop, F. P.
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.


Black, Sir Cyril
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Green, Alan


Bossom, Clive
Cunningham, Knox
Gurden, Harold


Bourne-Arton, A.
Curran, Charles
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Dance, James
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Braine, Edward
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Brewis, John
de Ferrantl, Basil
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Brooman-White, R.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hastings, Stephen


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Drayson, G. B.
Hay, John


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Duncan, Sir James
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bryan, Paul
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Hendry, Forbes


Bullard, Denys
Eden, John
Hiley, Joseph


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Burden, F. A.
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Emmett, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Errington, Sir Eric
Hirst, Geoffrey


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hobson, John


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hocking, Philip N.


Cary, Sir Robert
Farr, John
Holland, Philip


Channon, H. P. G.
Finlay, Graeme
Hollingworth, John


Chataway, Christopher
Fisher, Nigel
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hopkins, Alan




Hornby, R. P.
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Smithers, Peter


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Mawby, Ray
Smyth, Brig Sir John (Norwood)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


James, David
Mills, Stratton
Stodart, J. A.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Jennings, J. C.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Morgan, William
Studholme, Sir Henry


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Morrison, John
Talbot, John E.


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Nabarro, Gerald
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Kershaw, Anthony
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Teeling, Sir William


Kimball, Marcus
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Temple, John M.


Kirk, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lagden, Godfrey
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Leather, E. H. C.
Peel, John
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Leavey, J. A.
Peyton, John
Thornton, Kemsley, Sir Colin


Leburn, Gilmour
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Turner, Colin


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Lilley, F. J. P.
Pitt, Miss Edith
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lindsay, Sir Martin
Pott, Percivall
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Litchfield, Capt. John
Prior, J. M. L.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Longbottom, Charles
Pym, Francis
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Loveys, Walter H.
Ramsden, James
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rawlinson, Peter
Walker, Peter


MacArthur, Ian
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wall, Patrick


McLaren, Martin
Rees, Hugh
Ward, Dame Irene


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Renton, David
Webster, David


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs.)
Ridsdale, Julian
Whitelaw, William


MacLeod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Rippon, Geoffrey
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Roots, William
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maddan, Martin
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Woodhouse, C. M.


Maginnis, John E.
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Woodnutt, Mark


Maitland, Sir John
Russell, Ronald
Woollam, John


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Scott-Hopkins, James
Worsley, Marcus


Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Seymour, Leslie



Marshall, Douglas
Sharples, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Marten, Neil
Shaw, M.
Mr. Ronald Bell and




Mr. Graham Page.

NEW WRIT (ORPINGTON)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for Orpington in the room of William Donald Massey Sumner, esquire, O.B.E., appointed a judge of county courts.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I formally oppose this Motion so as to draw attention—

Mr. A. E. Oram: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I am puzzled as to whether this business is being taken in the right order. I was present when you, Mr. Speaker, said that it would be postponed until 3.30. But should it not have been taken before the Ten Minutes Rule Bill of my hon. Friend

the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)?

Mr. Speaker: I have consulted the precedents in the interval. Surprisingly, it is not as the hon. Gentleman says. I am governed by at least three modern precedents in the matter.

Mr. Lipton: As I was saying, I formally oppose the Motion so as to draw attention to the dubious behaviour of the Government in connection with the Orpington by-election, which, in my submission, represents a denial of democratic rights. It is surprising to some people that there is no statutory requirement to fill a seat vacated between General Elections within a certain period. Nevertheless, the absence of a statutory requirement does not entitle the Government to abuse the position. The absence of a statutory requirement allows a convenient date to be selected for a by-election.
No one objects to a certain degree of political gamesmanship, because the selection of an appropriate day may, of course, be a material factor, but this flexibility in the absence of statutory provision has been grossly abused in the case of the Orpington by-election. Here we have a seat which was vacated on 1st October last year. In other words, almost five months have elapsed, during which the electors of Orpington have been denied the right of representation in this House.
Some of us suspect that the by-election has been deliberately delayed because the Government found themselves, for a variety of reasons, in an unfavourable situation which, perhaps, led them to think that it would be as well to postpone this by-election as long as they could. But what happened in the House yesterday shows that these political tactics have caused a certain amount of indignation in Orpington, where the period has been so prolonged that even the least intelligent Conservative voter there began to realise that he was not represented in this House.
Therefore, for the first time for many years, if not for the first time ever, we had the spectacle of a Petition being presented to his House by the electors of Orpington, asking this House to take the necessary action. There has been a gross abuse of constituents' rights to which even the electors of Orpington are entitled.
Every constituent, particularly in modern times, has come to feel that, in many cases, his only means of redress is through his elected Member of Parliament. The rights of constituents to redress through their Member of Parliament have been deliberately flouted by the cowardice of the Government to face the test of public scrutiny.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my hon. Friend explain to those of us who are not familiar with what has taken place in the south of England why this Motion has not been tabled before now?

Mr. Lipton: I was suggesting that the reason was the unwillingness of the Government to face the test of public scrutiny in Orpington because they thought that whoever was representing them in the

by-election would not secure a sufficiently large number of votes and that if it were held a little earlier the result would have been a damaging blow to the Government's prestige. The reason for delay is the abject cowardice of the Government and their reluctance to face the electors, which many of us regard as understandable in present circumstances but which should not by any means be so prolonged as in this case.
This delay, pushed to the limit of nearly five months, is reprehensible and, in my submission, a blatant affront to the public interest. That is why I consider that this Motion should not be accepted by the House until a satisfactory explanation has been given. I hope that the electors of Orpington will note that the Government have had to be goaded into taking action by a Petition presented to this House in deciding what action they should take when the long delayed opportunity of being represented in this House comes their way.

4.18 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I wish to make two brief points in reply to the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). The first question is whether, when a seat becomes vacant in October, there is anything unusual in the Motion for the Writ being moved about this time. The answer clearly is that there is not. There is, as the House knows, a convention, which, like most conventions, is convenient, that these Motions are in due course moved by the Chief Whip of the party which held the seat at the time of the vacancy.
In 1960, two vacancies occurred in October, one at Birmingham, Small Heath and one at Worcester. The Motion for the Writ for the seat at Small Heath, which was a Labour seat—I make no complaint about that—was moved on 3rd March. Therefore, the period which elapsed was longer than that which has elapsed in the case of Orpington. The Motion for the Writ at Worcester, a Conservative seat, was moved on 24th February, the same sort of period as we have now.
If one takes vacancies occurring in October, there were three in 1961—in


Orpington, Lincoln and Pontefract. The Writ for Lincoln was moved last Friday, the Writ for Orpington is being moved today and the Writ for Pontefract has not been moved so far. Nobody can say from this that there is any great discrepancy of practice between the two parties.
My only other point might conceivably appeal to the hon. Member for Brixton because he has a sense of humour. He has raised this sort of point before. He will remember that he did it on the occasion of the North Lewis-ham by-election. In this case the new register became operative on Friday and we moved almost as soon as the new register came into operation. The whole burden of the hon. Member's case when he spoke on 25th January, 1957—and he objected in the same manner to the Motion then before the House, and I think that he is remembering it now—was to say:
The object of the Motion is to ensure that the by-election shall take place on 14th February, the day before the new register comes into operation. In other words, this by-election is to be fought on an out-of-date register, which will entail at least 8,000 changes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 539.]
Assuming that there is any sense at all in what the hon. Member has said, or in the Liberal Petition which was presented yesterday, they are asking that this Writ should have been moved before the new register came into operation last Friday and so have disfranchised a considerable number of the electors of Orpington.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LONDON GOVERNMENT

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [19th February]:
This this House takes note of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for the reorganisation of local government in Greater London (Command Paper No. 1562).—[Dr. Hill]

Which Amendment was to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
considers that the proposals on the White Paper (Command Paper No. 1562) provide no adequate answer to the problems of planning and transport, would wreck the humane and efficient performance of several local government functions, notably education, housing and children's service, in central London and elsewhere, and offer no solution to the difficulties created for the counties of Essex, Kent and Surrey; and, believing that wiser and more effective plans for Greater London government are available, calls on Her Majesty's Government to revise their policy."—[Mr. M. Stewart.]

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I am sure that those of us who attended the debate yesterday and heard the brilliant reply of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government will agree with me that the debate so far has swung against the Government. I am happy to intervene now and to cross swords once again with the right hon. Gentleman. It is quite a long time since we debated with one another with some regularity in the House. Since then the right hon. Gentleman has been for all practical purposes, admittedly under camouflage, "Minister of Propaganda", a responsibility which he is now discharging in a part-time capacity. I mention this because although the right hon. Gentleman's tone seemed more mellow yesterday I am the last person to suspect him of impartiality.
I remembered something else when I was listening to the right hon. Gentleman. I remembered a broadcast which he made during one of the local government elections. It still remains the most outrageous and disgraceful broadcast in


the whole series, and this means that we must be careful when considering any proposals he makes for local government. As for the Minister of Education I will anticipate, having debated with him recently, that he will argue once again that half a loaf is better than none at all. I remind him in advance that even this argument is not very appropriate in the present context, because he will be robbing us of half a loaf which we should prefer to keep.
I should like to begin by putting the argument in its broader perspective. The Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London was bound by its terms of reference, but we as a House are not bound by them. What struck many of us in yesterday's debate was the simple fact, if we are thinking of the difficulties which obtain in the Greater London area, that many of those difficulties are outwith the area itself. I have mentioned the twin responsibilities of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. It is possible, because of the impingement of his Departmental responsibilities on his other responsibilities, as we learn from informed quarters, that the Conservative slogan is to be "Conservative planning works".
Here we have a sphere in which the major trouble is that Conservative planning does not work. We have the whole question of the influx into southeast England of 700,000 people during the past few years and the whole difficulty of there not being sufficient guidance to commercial development as contrasted with industrial development. This imposes problems on London which, even with the provisions of all the best machinery, London could not solve.
Again, if we are to consider the problems within the London area we have to consider the powers of the authorities within that area. It seems to me that most of the problems are concerned with securing the best use of urban land. I am sure that the Minister will have read "Signposts for the Sixties", and that whether he agrees or not with our proposals he must be driven to the conclusion that something must be done about this problem before we can seek a solution to the problems within Greater London.
To give another illustration, the Commission quite properly calls attention to

the filching of powers from local authorities since 1945, through legislation creating public corporations and through the Departments themselves. This is something that needs rectification. The initiative has come from within London and in some respects proposals have been made, but these have been resisted and held up by the Government. I make the broad point that if we are concerned with improving affairs within Greater London we must consider what powers the Government are prepared to exercise in planning nationally and also the extent of the powers to be provided for the authorities.
I have dealt with the first of the two principles which are apparent throughout the Report and I should like to deal now with the other—the need for healthy local government. If we want a healthy local government we want a better Press. We are politicians. We know that the Press is increasingly becoming an entertainment vehicle to carry advertisements and is detracting from public interest in political and other public affairs. This is relevant in London, because we have lost the Star. It happens that the Star paid more attention to the affairs of County Hall than either of the other two London evening papers. I do not know how many hon. Members have read the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) on the public relations of public authorities, but this is a subject which we must consider.
We must consider the vehicles of public intelligence. We must consider the fact that television has too wide a coverage to cover effectively the activities of local authorites. We must also consider how local authorities themselves should improve their public relations. This is most relevant because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham pointed out, the evidence presented to the Commission by the Centre for Urban Studies is that although local government may not have a vigorous public following in London it is more lively within the Greater London area than it is outside. This means that if we are concerned about this aspect of the Royal Commission's Report we should be concerned about the public relations of local authorities and the attention given to public affairs in our media of information.
Now I turn to the main theme of today's debate, the question of education. I am not concerned in London government. I am a Londoner by adoption. I am one of the people who was attracted here, so I can take a more impartial, detached view. What seems to me remarkable is that these proposals about education, providing for an enormous, unprecedented upheaval and disruption, are made in circumstances which hardly call for them.
I begin by taking the view of the Minister himself, because his Department gave its views to the Royal Commission. It said:
There is no part of the area in which the present system of educational administration does not work at least tolerably well. The weaknesses that exist are either not of such a nature or not so serious as to call for a surgical operation to cure them. Accordingly, the Ministry are not disposed to suggest on education grounds any division or amalgamation of the areas of the existing local education authorities.
What we are getting, however, is not a surgical operation, but a decapitation destruction of authorities. It may be that we cannot avoid doing this, but in trying to regard the matter in its educational context there does not seem to be a prima facie case for the scale of action envisaged by the Government.
Turning from the best-informed educational opinion which was given to the Royal Commission, we find that in looking beyond the Commission and at the evidence submitted to it there was no suggestion that any such step should be taken. Apart from the L.S.E. "B." which put forward three views—in parenthesis, the L.S.E. is not quite what it was—no proposals were made calling for such action. In fact, the Royal Commission said that
at the end of the day we still find ourselves obliged to make our own diagnosis and to propound our own solutions.
That is now academic, because in any event the conclusions of the Royal Commission have been abandoned.
The Commission suggested a two-tier system for education. I have re-read that part of the Commission's Report and I am not persuaded that there was a prima facie case for the Commission to consider. We need not pursue that further, however, because the Government have abandoned it. It is not helpful

now to pursue the argument through the Royal Commission.
To refer to another quotation, the Royal Commission said that the most important of all local government functions was education. Education, however, is now being removed from the sphere of the Greater London Council. Education would have affected the whole character of that authority. It will be a different authority if the greatest power that it could have exercised is to be taken from it. If this major responsibility is taken from the Greater London Council, is it a body which we can support over this vast area by direct election? We are to have a very shadowy appeal to the electorate. In any event, the entire recommendation of the Royal Commission concerning the first tier has been invalidated.
The second conclusion reached by the Royal Commission—and this, equally, has been abandoned—was that the boroughs could not be single-tier education authorities. The Commission said that the boroughs should be responsible for day-to-day management. I emphasise what the Commission had in mind when speaking about this at paragraph 807:
The day-to-day running of the schools should be the responsibility of the Boroughs By this we mean a large variety of decisions affecting the conduct of the schools, for example, the use of the premises out of school hours, and the acceptance of gifts of apparatus such as a television set from interested parties, parent-teachers' associations, and so on. But there are some matters, for example, holidays and conditions of transport, which need to be settled over a wider area than a Borough.
That conception, too, has been abandoned by the Government.
The Commission argued that if the powers were in the hands of a single-tier authority—the borough—there would be far too great a fragmentation of general policy and planning within the Greater London area. That informed view of the Commission has now been abandoned. The Government say that they are now against divided responsibility.
The Minister said yesterday, in convincing tones and in his best manner, that if we challenge the pattern, we challenge the principle. That is what the Government have done about the Royal Commission's Report. They have abandoned the principles and the conclusions accepted by the Royal Commission.
In these circumstances, the Government recognise that they face a dilemma. They face a new situation. They say that in this new situation, they will have boroughs larger than was envisaged by the Royal Commission. This goes to the root of one of the two principles which governed the Royal Commission, because it felt that the boroughs should be nearer in size to a population of 100,000 and should consequently be nearer to the electorate. This principle is being discarded.
It is equally important that if the number of boroughs is reduced from, say, 52 to 34, that is a quantitative but not a qualitative change. The fragmentation still remains. We still have the arguments of the Royal Commission and of the Minister's Department against such a fragmentation of planning and of general policy. We still have the argument against these authorities that, granted we have this heavily concentrated urban area, we are unnecessarily providing for an inadequacy of services and for administrative complexities which could otherwise be avoided. This has nothing to do with the argument about what should be the right powers of a county borough.
I represent a county borough which is a first-class education authority, but we are such an authority in the circumstances in which we happen to live. If the right hon. Gentleman's argument is accepted, we must have the fragmentation of cities such as Leeds, Manchester and the rest, because the argument which applies here would also apply there. One has only to mention that to realise how absurd the Government's approach is.
The Government have recognised the dilemma, but in the case of the boroughs they have sought the wrong solution. They have also recognised the dilemma because, as they say in their White Paper, they do not think that such an arrangement would be right in the centre of London. If it is wrong in the centre of London, I cannot see why it can be right in the rest of London. I am certain that both the right hon. Gentleman and his Department take the view that what is wrong in the centre of London would be wrong for Greater London as a whole. It is because the Government have placed themselves in this dilemma and have not escaped through enlarging

the size of the boroughs that they have put forward this half-baked proposal for a Central London Education Authority.
The White Paper refers to
a population of the order of 2 million.
What that means, I do not know. The right hon. Gentleman says that there is room for discussion about size. We know that there is room for such discussion—unless and until anyone suggests that it would be more convenient to retain the old L.C.C. area. The right hon. Gentleman is willing to consider these proposals, provided that the L.C.C. area is broken up.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the form which the education authority will take can be a matter for further consultation, but let us consider some of the difficulties with which we are faced in this connection. Is this envisaged as a single-purpose authority? If it is, the Minister will be the first to recognise that it is open to every conceivable objection. Everyone who is interested in education now agrees that with education ought to go children's care and children's services. I hope that we may have an answer to this question this afternoon. Will there be a further fragmentation of services, or shall we have an authority which will deal not only with education, but with children's care and children's services?
I am sure that the House was impressed by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham about the personal nature of many of these services, and the need for a large catchment area and a variegated group of services and officials. All that my hon. Friend said is further emphasised by a fine article written by Mrs. Mcintosh in the British Journal of Sociology. We must concede that it will be a considerable sacrifice if these services are also fragmented. If the right hon. Gentleman has been overborne on this matter, and we are to have a purely educational authority, it will be a retrogressive step. We shall be returning to the days of the old London School Board.
If we have a kind of London School Board, will it be elected? If so, an anomalous position will be created. Most people would regard the idea of a directly elected authority, responsible for only one function, within the same area as a county borough authority, as


entirely unworkable. If it is not to be elected, how can we claim to be advancing healthy local government? Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the financial implications?
I am not an advocate of the block grant system, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman himself would express reservations about it, but if we are to have this new authority it seems as though it will knock a hole in the block grant system. How will the authority be financed? By precept and grant? How will the grant be determined? Have the Government thought out this matter? It is no exaggeration to say that this is a half-baked scheme, thrown in for good measure to the Minister of Education, who did not like the original proposals of the Royal Commission.
Again, we come back to the question: if we are to make this drastic and unsatisfactory change, where is the compulsion for the change? The Memorandum of Evidence which the Minister placed before the Royal Commission said:
In most ways London are efficient local education authority. Thus, in school building, they have set as high a standard of design and efficiency as any authority in the country: they are carrying out an imaginative programme for the rehabilitation of old schools; and their proposals for the re-organisation of school accommodation to deal with shifts of population are sensibly conceived and executed. London are also very generous in the freedom of choice they allow to secondary school children and further education students. A child who has qualified for a grammar school can go to any school in London where there is a vacancy, and further education students are permitted to attend virtually any sort of course at establishments inside and outside the L.C.C. area.
This, at least in the view of educationalists, does not seem to be a compelling cause for change. Mention was made yesterday of the architects' department of the L.C.C. There is also the education department, and the L.C.C. inspectorate. We do not want to break up such things quite wantonly.
I return to the important question of parents' choice. I have some information on this matter from the London County Council, which I am sure the Minister will appreciate. The Council says:
Of over 34,000 pupils entering secondary schools in September, 1961, about 25 per cent. were admitted to secondary schools outside the proposed new London borough in which they live. Excluding the City of London, the

percentages varied between 14 per cent. and 36 per cent. For pupils designated as suitable for grammar type courses the percentage varied between 34 per cent. and 62 per cent. No less than 95 per cent. of the pupils admitted to secondary schools in September, 1961, were admitted to the schools of the parents' first or second choice. If new educational authorities were to be created within the existing county, freedom of parental choice on this scale could only be maintained by complex and extensive inter-authority arrangements. For example, it is estimated that, on the basis of the existing movement, inwards and outwards, of secondary school pupils, some 4,500 pupils in the case of one of the proposed new London boroughs, 5,250 in another, and 6,500 in a third would be involved. It is clear that the existing pattern of schools would not permit self-contained secondary education arrangements in the proposed new boroughs.
And it is not merely a question of secondary school education; the Council also gives examples concerning primary schools. It says:
For example, 587 children now living in one of the suggested new boroughs go to school beyond its boundaries, while 1,128 from outside attend schools in that borough.
If the Minister is serious in stressing the importance of parental choice—as he always does—nothing could militate more against that choice than to upset the present arrangements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey said last night, this is causing the most acute anxiety among the parents of children who wish to send their children to voluntary schools, denominational or otherwise.
Further, it is not merely a question of parents' choice; it is a question of special schools. The L.C.C. has 65 special schools, providing nearly 8,000 places. It has 27 boarding schools, and also playing fields. We only have to think of the provision of playing fields in London to recognise the difficulties that might arise. As the Council points out, in one borough alone 173 acres are devoted to playing fields. We can assume that that borough will not be included in the new area to be designated. Lastly, there is the question of further education.
Why should we break up all these arrangements? Surely we are concerned about children. I remember causing some surprise when I first spoke at a meeting and acquitted myself of my present responsibility, saying that I regarded education as being something to do with children. Surely that is so. We must visualise the hardship that will be


caused and the waste of the valuable administrative talent involved in trying to do one's best against overwhelming circumstances.
Let us turn to such advice as we can find. In her evidence before the Royal Commission, the Permanent Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman's Department said:
We should not ourselves suggest changes in the educational pattern.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government said: "Challenge the pattern: challenge the principle." If the Minister now is challenging the pattern approved by the Ministry he is challenging the principle. He is sacrificing education to other objectives.
The Minister of Education, at any rate, will be anxious to put himself in as much accord as he can with the teachers' organisations. Only a week or two ago, the London Teachers' Association, at its annual conference, resolved that the Government's proposals were "entirely unacceptable and, if implemented, would result in serious damage to the existing services."
We can also get similar opinions from the other county associations, of Middlesex, Kent, Essex and the rest. I think that everyone would appreciate that probably, if we are thinking of parents and the relationships of parents with the education system there is no one more important than head teachers, headmasters. I think that it is in the Royal Commission's Report somewhere that we get a mention of parents going to the town hall. It is more important for them to go to the school to see the headmaster.
We have the opinion of the London Head Teachers' Association, which says:
To carve off any substantial portion from the present L.C.C. area would create grave difficulties for the central authority as well as for the area cut off.
The Association goes on to itemise its reasons for finding that the proposals of the Government are quite unacceptable. Those are largely the reasons which I have given.
So here we have got not only the parents, but the people who are engaged in teaching, and those who occupy positions of responsibility as heads of schools, all saying that they are opposed to these proposals, and I challenge the

right hon. Gentleman to produce any educational opinion in favour of what the Government are now doing.
It seems that we are facing this position. The Royal Commission proposed a Greater London Council which the Royal Commission thought would be an advantage to planning and to the exercise of such like powers within the Greater London area. Having done that it then squeezed the education service to fit. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that for many reasons that was not an acceptable proposal. As I say, I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education has had some influence; he has persuaded his Cabinet colleagues that this, at any rate, would affect adversely the provision of education within the Greater London area.
This seems to be the difficulty of the Government, that having reached that conclusion they could only seek a solution which abolished the London County Council. That was the political terms on which another solution would be acceptable: this is a great political prize. For ill or for better the Conservatives have been starved of control of the London County Council. However, I would say to many hon. Gentlemen opposite that they, too, will pay a very heavy price if the Government pursue this end, because the Government cannot abolish the London County Council without taking other steps detrimental to education in the Greater London area.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be big enough to think about this again. We want not an uprooting and destruction. We want—yes, an improvement; there is room for an improvement; but let us improve by adapting that which people of all political parties have built up laboriously, painstakingly and lovingly for so long.

4.53 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has made a very interesting speech and raised a lot of fascinating questions about education. As he and I both had to begin somewhat later than we expected, and as I know that there are many hon. Gentlemen who wish to speak in the debate, I hope that the House will


forgive me if I cut out a number of the frills which it is, perhaps, customary to include.
I was listening to the debate yesterday and I remembered the discussion we had in this House seventeen years ago, at the end of the war, on local government reconstruction. In that debate a speech was made which I always remember. It came from the then hon. Member for Tottenham, South, Sir Frederick Messer. Sir Frederick, who knows a great deal about local government, told us then that when peace came we should have to take much more care about the difference between the human and the engineering services in local government, and he went on to warn us that even in the human services we should probably require large units, but we must see that efficiency did not get it all its own way.
That is the dilemma we are up against today. The Royal Commission looked at this growing complex of human and engineering services and it recommended us to sort them out between a Greater London Council and about 50 London boroughs. That it is the right time to make a redistribution of functions of that kind I think all the House is agreed. That is the principle on which we are agreed, but we are not agreed entirely on the method by which it should be done.
This kind of redistribution is not only necessary today in regard to education. One finds it in all sorts of our contemporary activities. We meet everywhere these two pressures, the one to grow big for reasons of efficiency, and the other to remain small for reasons of humanity. The Royal Commission found that conflict in an acute form in the present state of London's government.
Where the White Paper diverges from the Royal Commission's very readable and stimulating Report it does so not because we are against the principle of sorting out the functions between a Greater London authority and new boroughs, but because we think that the Commission did not give quite enough attention to the lessons of experience in local administration and particularly in the education service. Indeed, it is mainly out of regard for the education service that we are proposing a major

change from the recommendations in the Commission's Report.
Education is, by common consent, one of the human services. It exists to meet the needs of the children and the wishes of the parents, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, and when changes are to be made no one working inside this service challenges the principle that the interests of the children must come first. The teachers, the local authorities, the Churches, hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, are really all agreed about that.
It is also true that education has its share of the problems arising from the same causes which make for take-over bids in industry and larger areas for local administration. In our service, too, efficiency and humanity have to be reconciled, and there is room for some very wide differences of opinion on many of the fundamental issues involved in that reconciliation. For example, what balance should be struck between the needs of the child and the demand for uniformity? How should power be divided between the Minister and the local authorities?
This afternoon we have to pay special attention to the respective merits of large and small local education authorities in a continuous built-up area. On all these issues there cannot be perfect solutions. We have to try to find the best way to organise the education service, taking full account of local and general conditions and of the other services as well as our own. Indeed, education is by no means unique in having to resolve this conflict between efficiency and humanity.
All local services are being affected by technical progress. That is to say, in response to movements of population, improvements in transport, changes in engineering techniques and in the demands of the public, the area over which each service could be most efficiently administered is changing very much, and usually it grows larger. But these changes do not affect all the services equally, or even the same service in the same way in different parts of a vast area like Greater London. For that reason, it is not possible to establish areas of local government which are ideal for all services. There has to be give and take, and to strike a balance


between the claims of all those different services is the only practical solution.
In this medley of local services, education is something of a cuckoo. Our service is very large. We are very thrusting, we spend more money than any other service, and we are to spend still more of the ratepayers' money, because we have enormous—I would say unlimited—tasks ahead of us. We affect the homes of every family where there is a child. So it is very natural for experts and educationists, not to mention my own Ministry, to underestimate the legitimate claims of other local services, and even to make their own case as if the others did not exist.
Having put that thought into the minds of hon. Gentlemen, I should like now to describe some of the arguments for the structure proposed in the White Paper for education in London. In the first place, we have to take thought, not for the present, but for a distant future. That is the nature of education, which has very long-range results. Once a child has left school, he cannot go back. He has to make do with the equipment for life which his education has given him.
Therefore, I invite the House to look ahead for, say, fifty years, and to try, as best we can, to imagine the kind of world between now and then which school children will enter and for which our system of education must prepare them. Will it be very different from what we know now, and, if so, how should the prospect of change influence our educational planning for London? I am sure that the stock of knowledge will increase beyond our present comprehension and that this alone, with all the consequential speed-up in technical change, will put on the schools demands which will be new both in kind and in degree. It is these demands, coming over the horizon, for which we must now prepare.
Parents are already beginning to realise how much boys and girls are handicapped whose general education is too slight to fit them to adapt themselves to technical change. One can see already that the demand for better general education is bound to grow very much. And what of the young people themselves? I suggest that they will have to be prepared to leave one skilled job

and take up another in response to changed methods, machines and markets, and that that kind of versatility will be required in the distributive and white-collar trades just as much as in industry.
Therefore, employers, trade unions, schools and technical colleges will have to combine and make the acquisition of new skills a great deal easier than it is now. All this, if the House thinks that is the kind of world we are going into, must influence the content and structure of the public system of education, and consequently, the size and organisation of local education authorities. The demand will be for wider variety and choice between schools and between courses in further education.
The impact of the changing world points, therefore, to larger rather than smaller local education authorities. On the other hand, there are strong local factors which will always set a limit on the optimum size of a local education authority. The relations between parents and the authority are the most obvious example, and, the larger the area, the more remote the authority is. Hon. Members should not underestimate the strength of the feeling in London on this very point.
Another factor is the need, which will grow, to prepare children for the employment opportunities in the areas where they live. Employment differs in different parts of an area as big as Greater London, and that is a reason for a large, but not too large, local education authority, because local employers need to enter into consultation with the planning authority.
If I may sum up this part of the argument, the progress of science and technology pushes us towards larger local education authorities, while local considerations, particularly good relations between the parents and the authority, set a limit on how far we should go.

Mr. Michael Cliffe: Is the Minister aware that the London County Council does, in fact, provide facilities for the things he has referred to—for those children going out into employment in whatever type of industry or profession?

Sir D. Eccles: I have some small knowledge of the London County


Council further education programme. It is good, but it could be better, and the L.C.C., just as much as I, wish to see it better.
London, of course, is a special case. A great city can always offer a wider choice in education than a small town or a sparsely populated rural area, though whether that compensates the child for the loss of open skies and the feel of the turning seasons is something that I should like to argue on another occasion.
Anyway, for a long time now, Londoners have had a wider choice in education than the inhabitants of any other part of the United Kingdom. That is the result of the history of London's local government. As far back as 1870, the London School Board assumed the administration of education over the area which in 1904 was transferred to the L.C.C., so that for ninety years, a single authority has built and administered the schools in the L.C.C. area.
London's system of transport is important. It has allowed parents a great freedom of choice between schools, greater, I would guess, than is available to any other population of a similar size anywhere in the world. The habit has been formed, and parents now take it for granted, that their children can go quite long distances by public transport to school. The most striking examples are, naturally, to be found in the central area of London. There, the schools and colleges were built up with no particular regard to borough boundaries. The grammar schools and institutions of further education, as the hon. Member told us from the latest L.C.C. Report, draw their students from far beyond the boroughs in which they are situated.
I will come back in a moment to the question—raised last night by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and touched on by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North today—whether this breadth of choice now enjoyed by Central Londoners could be preserved if the new boroughs in the central area made arrangements between themselves to secure free trade in children and students. I shall answer that question in the negative.
First, I should like to say a word about the two-tier local administration

of the education service. We owe it to the Commission, which took great trouble, to examine its proposals. The Ministry of Education has learnt from experience that in a continuous built-up area divided powers are not so satisfactory as an all-purpose L.E.A. responsible for both planning and administration. The Commission took a different view. It recommended a major extension of the two-tier authority. It proposed that the Greater London Council should be responsible for the policy and planning of all education and for the running of certain institutions of further education over an area which contains 3,500 schools, 43,000 teachers and 1,100,000 children.
The corresponding figures for the L.C.C. area are 1,200 schools, 18,000 teachers and 450,000 children. There are some people with local knowledge who think that the L.C.C. area is too large for a human service like education. But, whether the House agrees on that or not, how could members of the Greater London Council have a real knowledge of the wishes of parents in a vast area containing more children than in the whole of Scotland? If we put the scheme of the Commission into operation, local government for education would have lost its meaning.
The Commission also recommended that the Greater London Council should delegate the day-to-day administration of the schools to about 50 new borough education authorities. We are quite convinced that such delegation would bring much trouble and friction. It is curious that the Commission, which saw how this system was working in Middlesex, should have invented almost the same model for the whole of the review area. I cannot forbear to quote just one of the many passages in its Report which seems to belie its own conclusions:
While therefore we recognise that in some areas for some purposes delegation may be useful and even unavoidable we find that it involves inevitable stresses and strains requiring exceptional people to withstand them. Moreover delegation really only exists to paper over the cracks caused by the split of a function between an 'upper-tier' and a 'lower-tier' authority. Wherever possible we would prefer to get rid of the split.
I could not have described the hazards of a two-tier authority better myself.
This is a fundamental issue. I hope very much that the House will agree


that we should reject a division of powers between an upper-tier and a lower-tier authority for Greater London, and also agree that the Greater London Council itself is too large to be entrusted with the full power of planning and running the schools. I believe that the House agrees about that.
Now we come to the question: how many and of what nature should be the all-purpose L.E.A. to cover the review area? The two main factors in deciding the size of London's local education authorities must be, first, our desire to give the new boroughs the largest complex of duties which they are capable of carrying out efficiently, and secondly, our determination to preserve and promote variety of choice for children and parents. It is impossible to deny that it is extraordinarily difficult to strike that balance. Any Government would find that balance a really hard problem. As I have said, the choice of schools is good and it would certainly be lessened if the whole of Greater London were cut up into anything like 50 separate local education authorities.
From the point of view of education, then, what ought to be the size of the boroughs? There is no analogy between the size of an efficient self-contained county borough and the optimum size of a new L.E.A. carved out of the continuous built-up area of London. Geography has dictated and tradition confirmed that cities like Bath, Norwich and York should be separate local education authorities, and very well they do their job.
The secondary schools and the technical colleges in such a county borough very often serve the villages in the country around. But, even so, the choice for children and students cannot be as wide as in the capital city. Therefore, we aim at a minimum population of about 200,000 for the outer-London boroughs which would be local education authorities in their own right. Some boroughs may be substantially larger, and from the strictly educational point of view we should prefer that they should be larger.
I will return in a moment to some other considerations about these outer boroughs. Now I wish to deal with the centre of London, where we have a unique situation. Here, there is an area much larger than could

be envisaged to form one new borough. Yet all the arguments lead to the conclusion that it ought to be treated as a whole for education. We cannot, therefore, escape one of the conflicts, to which I referred when I began my speech, between what is best for one service and what is best for all the others.
The boroughs in the centre of London will be well capable of administering other services. But if the area were split up into a number of separate L.E.A.s, many advantages now enjoyed by parents and children would be lost. In the White Paper we have suggested a Central London Local Education Authority with a population of the order of 2 million. It is impossible to define the authority at the moment, because we do not yet know the new borough boundaries, and the exact size and shape are, therefore, still open.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: The Minister said just now that if the central area were broken up into boroughs many advantages for parents and children would be lost. Would he specify what those advantages are?

Sir D. Eccles: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not followed what I said before. The advantages are the way in which children cross borough boundaries and go to schools because of the pattern of schools and the existence of good travelling facilities. I shall come back later to that point.
I have been asked—this, I think, will interest the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew)—whether the boroughs in that part of the L.C.C. area which is outside the 2 million suggested for the new central L.E.A. want to become L.E.A.s themselves. As yet, no one can say, because the new boroughs do not exist. It is possible that some of the smaller boroughs from which the new groupings are to be made might feel that they were not able to take on these responsibilities. Others of them might.
What we shall do when the new borough boundaries are decided is to consult them about all their powers, and if any of them say that they do not wish to be education authorities and would prefer the education of their children to be the responsibility of the central authority, we shall obviously


have to take this into account when coming to a definite decision about the size of the central local education authority.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: This is an important point. The right hon. Gentleman has made a case for retaining a central London education authority. He talked about the London School Board, and so on. Can he explain why this applies to only two-thirds of the old London School Board area, now the L.C.C. area, and not to the whole area?

Sir D. Eccles: The main reason is that as one gets towards the very centre of London so the pattern of schools and technical colleges is less and less related to borough boundaries, and, furthermore, the transport system is better and better. When one gets further out from the very centre of London, the transport system is like radial lines coming into the middle, but when one is in the middle there is a good, complex, system of crisscross transport; and if statistics were gathered to show the number of children in schools in the L.C.C. area who come from outside the borders of the borough in which they live, it would be found that the nearer one gets to the middle the more children there are coming from outside.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman has been saying things about what he calls the very middle or centre of London. He is predicating certain things about the middle or central area. He cannot do that unless he has some idea of what part of the L.C.C. area he means by the very middle or centre. What does he mean?

Sir D. Eccles: I cannot answer that without a map. Unless we know the boundaries of these new boroughs, themselves to be formed of groups of existing boroughs, we cannot give the answer, because, obviously, the central area must be composed of complete new boroughs. These are matters which my right hon. Friend is discussing with the boroughs concerned, and as soon as he is in a position to give information to the House I am certain that he will do so.
I come to the question to which the hon. Member for Fulham referred last

night, and it is this. Could not the advantages deriving from the present pattern of schools and the good system of transport in the centre be preserved in some other way than keeping a separate education authority—for instance, by joint agreements between the new boroughs within the central area?
The suggestion there would be that the whole of the London education service should be broken up and replaced by voluntary arrangements between the boroughs, which would then be full education authorities, and in that way we would secure the same measure of free trade in children and students as we have now—and indeed it is our duty to get even freer trade.
We did not dimiss this idea out of hand. We looked at it. Free trade between authorities has never been easy, although it is true to say that it is much better accepted now than it was. Naturally, the lower the proportion of an authority's children who go outside its boundary to school, and the lower the number of children that come in from outside the easier free trade is to work, but I am bound to tell the House that the proportion of children who would be exported and imported between the central boroughs in the area, which is roughly 2 million, would be so large as to constitute a new, and, I think, insoluble problem. This is a serious point about the whole structure of London education.
Even if that problem could be satisfactorily solved here and now by some free trade arrangement between boroughs—and I very much doubt whether it could be—it is to the future that we have to look. It is not humanly possible for a local authority to plan developments in its area without caring, first and foremost, for its own constituents. If we had a number of separate L.E.A.s in this central core in London, they would have to plan as much for the children they receive from the other areas as for their own.
Experience shows that this does not happen. The exporting authority wants to build schools and colleges to keep its own children within its boundaries, and the importing authority may or may not make further provision for more children and students wishing to come in from outside. Therefore, looking at the wider


choices which the future should bring, the conclusion seems inescapable that we could not rely on inter-borough arrangements to secure either enough free trade now, or the best planning for the years ahead, in this central area of 2 million or thereabouts.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument, and I agree with most of it, but how does he relate it to the 1½ million citizens who are now in the L.C.C. area, and who will come up against the problems about which he is talking?

Sir D. Eccles: I can only repeat what I said earlier. First, the boundaries are not yet settled.

Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman said that about 2 million people would be affected.

Sir D. Eccles: I said about 2 million. Secondly, it is a fact that as one gets away from the centre of London the proportion of children who go outside the borough boundary to school rapidly diminishes.
The Commission saw the dilemma between local control of the schools and planning over a very wide area, and that is why it proposed to give the Greater London Council the planning powers for education. The Government, on the other hand, think that the review area is much too big for such powers. Equally, we think that boroughs of about 200,000 are much too small to make efficient L.E.A.s. in the Central London area. We therefore conclude that we should establish a single L.E.A. to deal with the greater part of the present L.C.C. area.
I am sorry to have to say this, but I am aware—because they have made we aware of it—that some of my hon. Friends feel that the L.C.C. has shown itself so doctrinaire in its educational planning that it would be worth almost any price to hand over its responsibilities to the new boroughs. I am sorry that the L.C.C. has just restated, in a slightly modified form, its 1947 education plan, which is to close county grammar schools in its area and substitute a series of comprehensive schools. It knows that this plan will not go through so long as there is a Conservative Minister of

Education. In fact, we (have allowed a great measure of experiment, but we cannot allow the doctrinaire destruction of good schools.
The L.C.C. knows, too, that it is only an empty gesture to say that it can get rid of the 11-plus examination unless all grammar schools, Church schools as well as county schools are closed. That would arouse tremendous opposition, not least from the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). In spite of this untimely provocation, I advise my hon. Friends to go for a large central L.E.A. to deal with at least 2 million of the population now in the L.C.C. area.
There are just two matters on which I must say something—special schools, some of which belong to the existing education authorities, but are situated outside London, and playing fields, which are often some distance from the schools which use them. We will see that justice is done here. Where these schools are situated in one of the new boroughs or in the central L.E.A., they will continue to be administered by them. The same applies to playing fields. Where either the special schools or the playing fields are outside the London area, we will provide for an allocation to be made in such a way that the children who now benefit from them will continue to benefit from them. I can give the House an assurance that we will not allow any school to suffer.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify that? Who would be responsible for running the special schools, apart from the allocation?

Sir D. Eccles: The allocation will give the special schools—whether they are on the South Coast, or wherever they may be—to one or other of the authorities. I would suppose that the central authority will probably get the lion's share. That needs discussion. I do not wish anything of that kind to happen without consultation and agreement.
There are a number of ways in which the central L.E.A. might be constituted. We are very anxious to obtain the advice of the House on this. One possibility is that the authority should be directly elected. A second is that it should consist of members of the Greater London Council who had been elected for central


areas. A third is that it should be a joint board made up of nominees of the constituent boroughs.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North asked about finance. He is quite right. Finance is a critical issue in the consideration of the constitution of the authority. We have to find a way to set reasonable bounds to the money which this single-purpose authority might be disposed to spend. I do not think that there is any technical difficulty over the application of the general grant system. My right hon. Friend and I have had this question looked at for a sample of authorities and our tentative view is that the normal formula for the payment of general grant, combined with a normal system of precept on the boroughs within the central area, will give a reasonably equitable result.
I am sure that the borough councils which levy the rates and receive the general grant will expect some form of consultation on the total of the money to be spent on education. That is one of the matters which we shall bear in mind in thinking of the constitution of the central L.E.A. The most direct way of bringing in the boroughs is to make the L.E.A. a joint board composed of borough representatives. This is a possibility which hon. Members have no doubt thought of.
However the boundaries of a central L.E.A. may be drawn, there will be a still greater population to be cared for in the remainder of the review area. As my right hon. Friend said yesterday, discussions are now proceeding on the size of the boroughs which will make up this outer area. They will have full and great responsibilities in education.
One point was raised last night on which I had intended to say something. Although the transport system in the outer areas is nothing like as complete a network as it is in the centre of London, it has allowed a good deal of travelling to and from school—roughly speaking, about half as much as in the central area. It will therefore be necessary to work out arrangements for school children and students to cross the new borough boundaries, and here the important interests of the denominational schools will be fully safeguarded.
I was a little surprised at the way in which the hon. Member for Bermondsey raised this matter last night. The White Paper has been out over two months. We had thought this thing out, but only on Friday did I receive a representation from the Churches. I hope that the hon. Member for Bermondsey will take it from me that the language they used in the letter was, as always, most courteous and reasonable. They merely asked for an assurance which I was already prepared to give them—and to the Church of England, and the Jews, who all have important schools which draw their students over large areas.

Mr. Mellish: Let us get this on record. I, too, have seen the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. Of course, the language is very tempered. That is to be expected. But their misgivings and fears are very real and I expressed them forcefully last night.

Sir D. Eccles: If the hon. Member was speaking for the hierarchy, I am surprised. It is not the sort of language which we have so long had from them.
Allowing for this form of cross traffic, we think that the total volume of children going outside their borough to school would not be great enough to endanger the efficiency of 20 to 25 borough local education authorities. Therefore—this is the answer to the question which the hon. Gentleman put to me—we believe that we can and should secure the very real advantages of giving education as well as other services to the boroughs outside the central area.
To form these new L.E.A.s, the Middlesex County Education Authority would disappear, as would a large part of Surrey, part of Kent, and part of Essex. I pay a tribute to the fine work which these county councils have done in education. They have established many first-class schools, technical colleges and training colleges. I think that we all understand their reluctance to be parted from work which has given them so much justifiable satisfaction.
I should have thought that Kent and Essex would find their education problems somewhat easier to handle after the proposed changes. Surrey, on the other hand, is hard hit. On the assumption that Surrey loses all the areas marked


in the maps as going to the Greater London area—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may have something to say about this—Surrey will have to give up rather more than half its children and half its schools.
But it would still be a wealthy and powerful county. It would still have 74,000 children in the public system of education. It is a county where there is a very high proportion of children going to independent schools. I have not the least doubt, and hon. Members who represent the county need have no doubt, that the work Surrey will be left to do will be of a very high order and we shall count on the county to keep up the standard that we know so well.

Mr. Norman Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about Kent, because there are deep misgivings in Kent about the parts of north-west Kent which will be swallowed up?

Sir D. Eccles: I know that the hon. Member represents a Kent constituency. I have done my best to get information and it is that the Kent authority is not so alarmed about this, but thinks that, on the whole, our proposal makes quite good sense. There is still much to be discussed about the actual peripheral part of the Greater London area and that may help the hon. Member.
I want quickly to sum up. The White Paper is concerned with many services besides education. We have to get all of them into one great reform. This is bound to be a very difficult and strongly contested operation. Nothing arouses more opposition than changes in local government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) reminded me that when I was Minister of Works he used to say that the thing in public life which arouses more passion than anything else is a proposal to move a London statue. I told him that I thought that the proposal to change London's boundaries and functions was an easy winner. The Commission made an unanswerable case for the extension of the planning and engineering services to a wider area than that now administered by the L.C.C.
As far as I can judge, the House is agreed on that. This afternoon I have been concerned with education which

is, of course, the opposite of an engineering service. The House will recognise and welcome that where we have departed from the main recommendations on education we have done so because we believe that the interests of the children and their parents would be better served by a different structure.
First, we cannot accept two-tier administration. On the contrary, we believe that all-purpose local education authorities give the best results. Secondly, we feel that the prospect of rapid technical change in the next half century lays on us the duty to plan for choice and variety in education. We propose, therefore, a large Central Local Education Authority surrounded by a number of quite large efficient borough education authorities.
This will give us a new structure for education in London. The Central Local Education Authority will be a great and promising experiment and I would think that an elected body devoted solely to education would give the Minister quite a lot of trouble, and also good advice. We have inherited a unique pattern of education in London to which all political parties have contributed. There is still a great deal to do in education in London and I hope that the House, building on what has been done in the past, will not be afraid to go forward and suit our structure to the needs of the future.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I have given the whole of my working life to education in the area under discussion this afternoon. I was educated in this area in the bad old days of the 'eighties and 'nineties of the last century. I taught in the area, I was apprenticed in it and, in 1914, I forsook the practice of education and went over to administration. Since then my life has, in the main, been given either to the administration of education or to legislation in respect of it. Therefore, I know something of the difficulties that confront the Minister.
I wonder what would have been said if the present Home Secretary, in 1943, when he was proposing the new establishment of education, had made a forecast so vague and woolly as the one we have had this afternoon. The scheme under discussion, as the Minister knows,


will break down unless it is considerably modified on the problem of extra-district children who are the bugbear of educational administration.
For some family reason certain parents wish to have their children educated three or four miles away from where they live. Perhaps the father went to the school or the mother's father had once been the headmaster. There are all sorts of personal ties in this section of the population—with which we mainly deal in popular education—that make the task of the administrator very hard indeed. The curse of the British education system is that parents will bear children on different days in the year—which makes the administration inside the schools very difficult.
The problem of the 11-plus examination revolves around the fact that one child sitting for the examination may be nearly a year older or younger than the child seated next to him in the examination room. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and myself went through that process in the days when it was all comparatively easy, but today there exist these tremendous pressures and the feeling that a child is a failure if he has not managed to pass the 11-plus. This is one of the terrible trials of modern education—and this is the case whatever the Minister may say or whatever views I may express in the areas in which I have some influence. The parents of all the children in any given street sort the children out into the socially inferiors who fail the 11-plus and the superiors who get through.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) and I have both given our lives to the problem of dealing with the proper allocation of schools in the County of Surrey and for securing that, as far as possible, every child shall be educated according to the wishes of his parents. That mainly affects those for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) spoke last night. Neither the hon. Member for Wimbledon nor myself belong to my hon. Friend's faith, but the county council about which I am speaking appointed us as governors of both the Jesuit College and the Ursuline Convent which we deliberately brought into

the county maintained system so that every Catholic child who passed the 11-plus examination in Surrey would have the advantage of being taught in a school in which the parents had faith in the teachers.
That is no small part of a successful organisation of teaching. My parents did not have faith in the teachers of the school at which I was educated. They were Nonconformists and it was a Church of England school. I appreciate what conflicts and suspicions mean and the hon. Member for Wimbledon and I resolved, as far as we could secure it, that that particular group in the County of Surrey should not have to suffer from that disability.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey is wise. He lives in the County of London which made the arrangement whereby we still reserve six places for children of parents who live in the County of London and the hon. Member for Bermondsey has monopolised two of these places over many years past. As far as I can see, by the time he has completed educating his family many of us will not be taking very much interest in the affairs of this world.
We also have Catholic primary schools in Leatherhead, Dorking, and Caterham and there is one as far away as Camberley. While the right hon. Gentleman may not think very much of our travel arrangements in Surrey, we manage, at any rate, to get these children to Wimbledon, to those two schools and, I believe, there is also one in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson).
In future, children educated at the primary stage in schools which I have mentioned will be extra-district children as far as Wimbledon is concerned. The right hon. Gentleman knows what problems extra-district children create—he gave some glimpses of them this afternoon. The new Wimbledon, which is to consist of Wimbledon, Mitcham, Merton and Morden, will be the local education authority containing schools which the County of Surrey brought into its system to deal with the county as a whole. That is the sort of thing that will happen and I mention those things because I can speak of their details from my own knowledge. From time to time the hon. Member for Wimbledon and I go to see


the Minister about the problems of these schools.
The communities concerned want a direct relationship between themselves and the Ministry of Education in the matter of capital expenditure. They cannot forget what happened in Liverpool. After the Education Act, 1936, the Labour Party, then in power in Liverpool, provided for Catholic secondary schools to be built under that Act, Mr. Oliver Stanley's Act. But the Orange Party in Liverpool won sufficient seats, as a result of agitation against that proposal, to secure the government of the city for a few years from that date.
Smaller authorities are likely to become involved in gusts of cruel and wrong passion which can wreck havoc on the Minister's best proposals. When the Home Secretary and I were negotiating with the Catholics during the promotion of the 1944 Act, they said that they did not want to get involved in squabbles with comparatively small authorities and preferred to have an Act of Parliament and to negotiate direct with the Government. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
I could not follow the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. He seemed to prove magnificently the case for one education authority to cover the whole area. He then went on to speak about splitting it up into fifty-four boroughs, some of which would be abstracted into the central area so that even at this advanced stage of the consideration of this problem we do not know exactly how many education authorities it is proposed to create, nor what will be the relationship of the boroughs to them, nor what will be the relationship of the boroughs to the areas to be covered by the central authority.
Reading documents about the shift of population in London, my impression over the last twenty years has been that the population is leaving central London, so that this elaborate system which the Government propose to build up will be for an area in which there will be very few children and young people. It will be very helpful for further education and to people leaving full-time education and wanting to continue their education in further education institutes, for they will be able to go to the institute straight from work and then go home

after attending their course. But to suggest that this is an area in which there will be great numbers in primary and secondary education is to ignore all the signs of the times of the last twenty years.
There is no real need for much communication between an education authority and parents. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that what is required is an association between the parents and the school. That is the living contact. What is education these days? Ignoring the old high-sounding definitions, education consists of the contact of a mature mind with an immature mind. Thank goodness, it is sometimes a two-way traffic!
When I address groups of young teachers, I always tell them that if in the first month of their professional careers they do not learn more from the pupils than the pupils learn from them, they should write it off as a failure. Education is this personal contact and the vast administrative empire which has been built on that simple process ought to have only one object—to see that the contact between the mature and the immature minds is made in circumstances in which full apparatus and healthy physical conditions are available for the process to be carried on.
I am not so much concerned with the machinery as machinery. I want to be sure that it can act in the way I have described. We do not want more local authorities than are to be found in the existing county councils and county boroughs. Within their own areas, they should be able to have full charge of all kinds of education, and they should co-operate as they have done in recent years.
My mind goes back to the time when there were great conflicts between outer and inner London over this matter and when children who lived in Surrey and who wanted to attend a London night school used to discover an aunt who lived in the County of London and whose address they could give when they wanted to attend a London evening institute. Those conflicts have disappeared and we have been able to prove that co-operation is possible in these areas and that the financial arrangements, which are inevitable, can


be agreed with good will and to the advantage of the population.
I cannot see why the four home counties within the area which may finally be decided to be part of Greater London should not continue to operate and the three county boroughs should not be able to operate in the same way, there being a continuation of the joint bodies which now exist and work freely together, in an effort to secure for the people of the area the best possible education over the widest possible range.
To split this area up into a number of small local education authorities each wondering how many children from the adjoining area it is educating and making quite sure that the bill goes to that education authority in order to pick up such few pounds as it may be able to claim would, I think, be detrimental to any wide concept of education.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon knows, as I do, one school in Surrey the boundary of the southern playground of which is the boundary with East Sussex. One can go along the southern boundary of Surrey a little way and come across another school which is in East Sussex. For years, we used to check very carefully how many attendances of Sussex children in the Surrey school there were and what happened the other way round at the other school. Sometimes, we found that Surrey owed Sussex for three children and the next year Sussex owed Surrey for five. In the end, we gave up the expense of keeping a check which acted only as an irritant and was a tremendous waste of money.
That is the kind of problem which will confront the Minister if he has thirty or forty local education authorities each in its circumscribed area. Although, as an old free trader, I welcome the Minister in his belief in free trade in education just as I welcome his acceptance of the doctrine of comprehensive schools for children at the primary stage, I think it deplorable that he should have declared the kind of political war in the education system which he did this afternoon. After all, a girl from a comprehensive school managed to win an open scholarship to Somerville this year, and any girls' public school able to imitate that would be advertising it fairly generally among parents.
We do not desire to destroy any school. We desire to see the grammar school expanded, as it has expanded throughout the ages, to provide in a liberal atmosphere a generous education for our country's children. This scheme stands condemned on the way it has been presented by the Minister to the House today. For my part, I hope that, when the right hon. Gentleman next comes to talk to us in the House about it, he will have thought it out, with all its implications, for until he does that he cannot expect any parent in the area to be covered by the scheme to feel any confidence in the machinery which he has erected.

6.5 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) complained that the Government's scheme is too vague. Yesterday, from his Front Bench the complaint was exactly the opposite, that the Government had made up their mind and were giving no scope for alterations. One cannot have it both ways.
The matters which we are discussing necessarily impinge on a great number of vested interests, and those which are adversely affected are, naturally, the most vocal. This fact tends, as always, to give a slightly false bias to the appearance of a debate in the House. I cannot speak for all Middlesex Members, but I have spoken to a great number of them about their views regarding the Government's proposals and I can say that the majority have said that they do not propose to intervene in the debate and that they feel general satisfaction with the proposals which have been put forward.
When my right hon. Friend who is now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced that he proposed to set up a Royal Commission, I thought that he was wrong. That was my view, not because I thought that a substantial measure of reorganisation of local government was unnecessary; on the contrary, it was so obviously necessary throughout the County of Middlesex that discussions on the matter had been going on for a good number of years before the Royal Commission was appointed. I did not like the appointment of a Royal Commission because I believed that


there would be a very general measure of agreement by Middlesex authorities about what ought to be done and I thought that it would be better, on the whole, if such agreement could be reached among the various authorities concerned, whatever their political complexion. I thought also that it was unlikely to be possible to obtain a set of unanimous recommendations from any Royal Commission on such a subject as this.
I am thankful that I was mistaken. Now, with a little hindsight, it is possible to say, I think, that I was inevitably mistaken because the general framework of the recommendations put forward by the Royal Commission is really so obvious that anyone who has considered this matter as a whole, objectively and with a dispassionate mind, cannot escape the conclusion to which the Commission came.
There are two main principles or coordinates—call them what one will—which have been referred to many times during our debate. The first is that a single authority for the whole of this area is essential for some purposes. I think everyone will agree that those purposes must include planning, traffic and population overspill. What is more, such an authority must be an authority with executive powers. It is not the least good trying to have a scheme by which a number of county councils and other bodies work together on a basis which, if it is not merely for the making of recommendations, is a mystery so far quite unexplained by hon. Members opposite.
The second consideration is that there must be a considerable devolution of personal and domestic functions to smaller authorities within the area. By that I mean not mere delegation but devolution, giving these smaller authorities actual control of policy. These are the two main principles on which the present recommendations are founded.
These two broad principles leave a great deal of latitude for discussion of detail—and, indeed, more than detail—of the plan which is to be finally implemented. This applies, for example, in education, concerning the size of the smaller authorities—the boroughs—and also, of course, the possibility of special treatment for special areas, including the central London area. There are many other possibilities of that kind.
The Opposition Amendment, though it is dressed up as criticism of the particular detailed proposals, is essentially an attack on the main principles of the Government scheme. I do not say for a moment that it is not necessary for those who support the main principles to prove that there is a case for making a change which will produce such an immense amount of difficulty as this scheme undoubtedly will. But what is certainly true is that it is not necessary to prove that case for every county and for every authority within the area. It is quite easy to point to good work in particular matters done by these borough councils or by the county councils, or indeed, to point to any particular authority amongst this mass of authorities and to say that it is a good one.
For example, it has been argued that the L.C.C. has a good housing record, and I am willing to accept that it has. But it is worth pointing out that it owns a very large number of houses outside the county council area. Indeed, it owns rather more than half the council houses in Hendon, and some of the others are owned by Hampstead. The policy of the L.C.C, naturally enough in the circumstances, is never to give one of its houses in Hendon to a Hendoner. Of course, it is quite easy in these circumstances for the L.C.C. to have a good housing record, but it has it at the expense of other areas. I am not at present criticising the L.C.C. for this.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Would the hon. Gentleman say that any authority other than the L.C.C. ought to have regard for the same sort of factors? Assuming that there was a large private estate in Hendon, would the right hon. Gentleman say that it must give houses to Hendon people?

Sir H, Lucas-Tooth: I am not making that point at all. I am saying that it is no use arguing that the L.C.C. has a good housing record and that, therefore, one should leave the Council alone. One cannot look at these matters in isolation. One must consider the area as a whole. It is essential to deal with Greater London as a whole.
Local government in London has not broken down. Indeed, it has not even


begun to do so. No responsible Government could possibly have allowed the position to get to that state of affairs. There are some satisfactory parts and some a good deal less than satisfactory. I need only say this to establish the case for having to make some radical changes in this connection: if we look at the amount of homelessness and at the traffic conditions in London we are bound to say that something must be done. It is no good criticising these proposals unless one can put forward other proposals which will hold water and will grapple with these problems.
Those of us who represent London constituencies realise that the position is not getting better but is deteriorating. Besides that, there is a growing tendency to bureaucracy. Last night the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said that the test was whether these proposals would give the citizen of London a better service than he has today. With great respect, that is not the test because that would mean that the citizen has to take what somebody else regards as better, whether he likes it or not.

Mr. M. Stewart: The citizen elects the authorities. He is the judge.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is exactly the point I am trying to make—that the real test is whether the citizen of London is getting the services he wants, and that the question should not be judged by some abstract argument about what is better. There is an immense amount of confusion among citizens of London about how London is governed. Everyone who represents a London constituency knows that more and more members of the public are approaching us and asking us questions which are really local government questions.
There is an increasing tendency by citizens to refuse to accept local government decisions. We all of us know individuals who have had planning and other decisions made against them, and who have asked us to take action to get those decisions overruled.

Mr. George Brown: It happens elsewhere, too.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It happens elsewhere, but a great deal in London. In local government elections, the number

of those who take part each year grows less and less. I think that the figures vary around 30 per cent. in the Middlesex County Council elections. I agree that that is happening elsewhere, but not to the same extent as in London. I have tried to find figures but, unfortunately, it appears that no figures are available to show.

Mr. John Barter: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to know the figures in this respect. In the last county council general election, the percentage of votes cast was 37·83 as compared with an average of 36·84 in the borough and district council elections.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is a particular figure in a particular election. There is no value in taking a particular figure for a particular election, any more than it is of value to take a particular council and cite that as an example. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that local government elections are decided more and more on national issues and less and less on the real issues of local government. Of course, that again is not peculiar to the London area, but it is very much to the fore here.
This tendency means one of two things: either local government policy is controlled by national political fortunes, or the elected members of councils are failing to control the policies of their councils. I think that there are some signs of both these tendencies at the present time, particularly among the larger authorities within the area. That leads me to the question of what is the right form of representation on the proposed Greater London Council. However that Council is constituted, its members will be influenced by two broad influences—one is what may be called borough considerations, and the other is party considerations. The Opposition suggest that it is necessary to have a large planning authority to cover the whole area—indeed, more than the area. I think they propose that that authority should be representative, not directly of the people, but of the authorities within the area. I am very glad that the White Paper proposal is that there should be direct representation on the Council for Greater London. I am quite certain that that will give the members of the Council far greater independence than they


could possibly have if they were appointed by local authorities and constantly subject to directions by those local authorities.
At the same time, the membership of the Greater London Council should not be more numerous than is actually necessary to do its very substantial duties. It is not at all easy to find good members for this type of authority. I think that everyone who has been concerned with politics in London knows the difficulty of finding people who are able to do the exacting work which membership of Middlesex County Council and other great authorities in the London area entails. These duties will be more exacting on an even wider authority. My view is that membership of one per constituency as recommended would give us a body of about the right size, but I hope very much that they will not be elected by the Parliamentary constituencies for the reason that the Parliamentary constituencies are units of the Parliamentary machine. If we have members of this body elected by the Parliamentary constituencies, they will be elected on a straight party political basis and we shall get even less of the local considerations brought into the election than we should have otherwise.
For that reason, I think that the right way to deal with this problem is to say that we shall have so many—probably, three or whatever the appropriate number—members per borough. I should prefer them to be elected in rotation, as are the borough members. The electors would then know when they voted annually that they were voting for one member for Greater London and one for the borough and the position would be very much clearer to them.
I turn to two particular functions. Certainly the Royal Commission's proposals for education were not satisfactory. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend on that. I have discussed them with the education officer in Hendon. We were quite satisfied that the result of those proposals would simply be a return to the state of affairs that we now have in Middlesex. The trouble is that education is already far too large a proportion of the whole business of local government and represents far too large a proportion of its costs. It is now approaching something

like three-quarters of the whole of the costs of local government. As my right hon. Friend indicated this afternoon, that figure may be even passed in the not distant future.
This is not a London problem; it is a national problem. It has shown itself with particular force in this connection because it was perfectly plain from what my right hon. Friend said that it is simply education which has dictated the size of the proposed new London boroughs. I think that most of us would have preferred to have retained the old boroughs, both for historical reasons and because we should like to have smaller units nearer to the homes of those concerned. It is a pity to have to enlarge the size of the boroughs for one service only when we all agree that they would be better as smaller units for the sake of other services.
That is a compromise one necessarily has to make in this connection. It is a compromise which I should be most willing to accept, but the way in which education is distorting local government as a whole ought to be examined. It cannot be examined in this context, but it ought to be examined as a national problem.
Then there is the question of housing. London County Council owns 4,000 council houses in Hendon. The White Paper says that the local council should have the ownership and management of these houses in due course. That misses the crucial point. It is not ownership and management that really matters. What really matters in this context is the power to allot houses when they become vacant. While I welcome the aim expressed in the White Paper, I do not believe that even the power to allot our own council houses to the full will help us in the long run. The power to put people from Hendon into these houses will, of course, ease the situation for the time being, but it must be admitted that it will create a correspondingly graver problem for the Central London area, whoever controls that area, and over the picture as a whole it will do nothing.
In a borough like Hendon as soon as we had taken up the slack by reason of the advantage of getting these houses under our control, we should find more people trying to come to the borough


and very soon we should be back where we started. Homelessness in London is due to our prosperity. That fact has to be recognised.

Mr. Gordon Walker: That is a terrible admission.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is not a terrible admission, but merely a statement of fact. London is so prosperous that it is drawing people in from outside all the time. Everyone who represents a London constituency is aware of that. Enormous difficulties will continue in this connection and will require a solution. I do not know whether it will be possible for the Government this evening to tell us something of the reserve housing powers referred to in the White Paper. Is it intended that there should be two waiting lists, one for the borough and one for the area as a whole? This is a fundamental problem and one of great importance.
Whatever our views, whether they are based on sentiment or ideology, we have got to have a single planning authority for London with central powers to deal with this problem. That is the first essential. Once that essential is agreed, all the other arrangements now proposed will fall into place. For that reason, I think that this scheme is on the right lines. I hope that it will have a very large measure of support in the Division this evening.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I realise that a great number of hon. Members with constituencies in the area wish to take part in this debate, so I shall speak very briefly. Although I have lived in London for the last fifty-nine years, I still do not regard myself as a true Londoner, but I think that I ought to intervene, for I had responsibility for two Reports before this Report was issued by the Royal Commission presided over by Sir Edwin Herbert.
First, I was asked by the Labour Government—by Earl Attlee, Lord Morrison and Lord Silkin—whether I would undertake the very responsible and very difficult task of seeing how much of the Abercrombie Plan could be agreed by the 149 local authorities. I am glad to say that with their assistance, and especially that of their planning officers

and borough surveyors, much to my surprise and certainly to the surprise of the Government of the day, there was ultimately complete agreement among all the authorities although, as usual among local authorities, there was tremendous local jealousy. But when I handed that Report in to the Government at the time I said, "There is agreement now about the main objects of that plan, the five great belts which Abercrombie has planned, the allocation of population to the various boroughs, and so on, but I do not think that it will last long unless something further is done."
I was then asked by the Prime Minster what I thought ought to be done. I said that it was not much use my saying what ought to be done and that he ought to have an inquiry to obtain a much more authoritative answer than I could possibly give. I felt, in fact, that only one solution was possible. Soon afterwards the Prime Minister asked me to preside over another very able Committee, almost all specialists, to consider that one question. Our powers were very limited. We came to the unanimous conclusion that what was required was one regional authority for the whole of the area. I wish that we could have gone further, but that would have meant taking a very long time and calling a great deal of evidence and, as I have said, our powers were strictly limited.
I had hoped that the Government of the day would follow that up with what the present Government have done—in other words, would appoint a Royal Commission to go at once into the question of the form of the regional authority, the extent of its powers, what other authorities should be under that regional authority and what would be the extent of their powers.

Mr. James MacColl: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Report of his second Committee was unanimous. It is only fair to say that it was unanimous on the general principle of regional government for planning, but that there was a minority Report.

Mr. Davies: I quite agree. I am dealing with the later Committee and the regional authority. On that we were unanimous. There was disagreement


on other matters, but on the main point there was complete agreement.
I had hoped that what has now been done would be done at that time but, instead, inquiries were made of local authorities, and the proposal fell through. Nothing came of it. As I have said, I had been in charge of the inquiry to see whether local authorities would agree to the Abercrombie Plan.
The Committee over which I presided approached this question in a new way, which was to regard London as one entity and not a mere collection of villages, boroughs or parts of counties collected in one area. The Committee looked at it as one entity of London presenting the most difficult local government problem, perhaps, in the world and certainly the most difficult problem in this country—the problem of housing, of education, of transport, of water, of sewerage and other matters such as were not presented in this way by any other area at that time in this country, although I am convinced that there are now other areas which are rapidly approaching the same position. It was extraordinary that the problem had not been tackled since it was tackled by the young Radicals of the late 1870s and 1880s.
For the first time we began to deal with the whole position of local authorities. The counties had not changed since early Saxon times when their government was in the hands of the sheriff and the magistrates. A few boroughs had a mayor and alderman and some form of corporation and a few of them had two elected bailiffs. These young Radicals of the 1870s were responsible for the first legislation, which began in the 1880s. It began with the Metropolitan boroughs and was followed immediately afterwards by the boroughs which had a charter, namely, the old market towns. We thus had the borough system of government. This was followed in 1888 by the county councils and in 1894 by the formation of rural district councils, urban district councils and parish councils. That was perfect as things were at that time; it could not have been better.
What these men put to themselves was the question which we ought to put to ourselves today: what is the area which

can give the best administration and provide the best service to the public? The answer depended in those days on the distance that a man could walk or a horse could travel. That was their limit. Two years after the last Act had been passed in 1894, an Act was passed through Parliament which began to revolutionise the whole position. For the first time the motor car was made free. Up to 1896 it was necessary for a man to walk in front of a motor car carrying a red flag to warn everybody on a horse that this dangerous vehicle was approaching. The Act freeing the motor car altered the situation, but something else altered it even more; the first mention of the telephone in an Act of Parliament was in 1899, and that, too, revolutionised the distance which could safely be undertaken for administration.
From that time no Government has ever tackled the problem in this way. All they have done is to consider the authorities as they were and add to their powers or deal with certain other matters. It never occurred to them that the whole thing needed looking at afresh. It was with respect to London that we had this outlook for the first time, and I congratulate the Government on appointing a Royal Commission, and I thank the members of the Royal Commission for the excellent work which they did. I agree with what they have reported, and I should particularly like to call attention to two paragraphs on page 181, which were mentioned yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
In paragraph 695, we read:
At the end of Chapter VI we indicated our general approach. Where things are working well our inclination is to leave them alone.
I should not have taken that attitude. I wonder what would have happened to industry in this country if industrial leaders had adopted that attitude—"If it is working well, leave it alone." What would be the position in London today?
When I first came to London it was thought that the fastest vehicle invented, or ever likely to be invented, was the hansom cab. What would have happened if we were all satisfied with it as we had it at the time? But we inquired, "Is it good enough? Should it not be better?"
Paragraph 695 of the Report continues:
We do not believe that London's problems can be solved merely by improving the machinery of government.
I agree with that.
Our inclination is to recommend changes only where they appear to be essential.
Paragraph 696 reads:
In spite of these predilections the facts we have found to exist and the inferences we feel bound to draw from them drive us to the conclusion that, judged by the twin tests of administrative efficiency and the health of representative government, the present structure of local government in the Review Area is inadequate and needs overhaul.
That sums up the matter, but I should like to make one other quotation from the Report. Paragraph 326 (9) states:
No single body, whether within central government or within local government, is charged with the responsibility for making continuous surveys of land availability, population movements, housing requirements, traffic problems, industrial and commercial development, and the many other matters which affect the Review Area as a whole. No body therefore is charged with the duty of constantly watching and assessing the effect of changing circumstances on the Greater London Plan, which is still accepted as the basic conception in planning.
What a reflection on us that paragraph is. What a condemnation of us. It is high time that the Government got to work and introduced their Bill.
I now wish to express dissatisfaction with one thing in the Report. Why did the Royal Commission's consideration stop at the green belt? There are five belts which all local authorities accepted. At that time they regarded the green belt as belonging to London. It was London's green belt and the intention was that it should be protected for the health of London. What is happening? Because industries are not allowed in the green belt and because the building of houses is limited in the green belt, they go beyond the green belt. Therefore, the Abercrombie Committee went beyond it.
The trend today is to go out of central London into the outer belts. Certainly, the trend to go beyond the green belt will continue. What was Abercrombie's plan? The Abercrombie Committee considered a radius of roughly 30 miles from this House. The absurdity of allowing Londoners in that area—they are Londoners and claim to

be Londoners—to go for all this time without the true supervision which was necessary is a terrible condemnation of us all.
As an instance of the absurdity of things, I wish to refer to my own county. Within a radius of 30 miles of this House there are between 11 million and 12 million people. In my own constituency, which is of a similar size, there are only 43,000 people, with 11 authorities to look after them. That was perfect when they were formed between 1884 and 1894, but it is absolutely absurd today. There are the county council, four borough councils, the biggest of which has only 5,000 inhabitants, four rural councils and two urban councils to look after 43,000 people.
That illustrates the need for the approach which is being made to the whole structure of local government. I therefore hope that when the Government deal with this matter in a Bill they will not stop where the Royal Commission stopped, but will deal with a larger area. That is needed for the health of London.
Finally, I wish to say a word or two about education. I think that the most ineffective speech from the Minister of Education to which I have listened was the one which he delivered today. Every argument which he used was in favour of the Royal Commission's findings. Every argument was in condemnation of the views which he put forward. Page 140 of the Royal Commission's Report sets out the matter about which I am anxious. It is stated:
The essential unity of the educational process from stage to stage, primary, secondary and further, should be maintained and developed, and the administrative organisation should be apt for this purpose. … It is essential that the planning of the institutions appropriate to each stage of education should be conducted as a whole and over an area wide enough to provide the greatest possible variety and range of schools or colleges.
I have complained of the handicaps placed on children by the inequality of the educational provision made for them. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and myself have taken part in many debates on education. I deplore the fact that the provision which is made for children in Surrey cannot be made for my children in Montgomeryshire.


Why should an extra handicap be laid upon them? How right the Royal Commission is in saying the wider the area the better the service, and that at any rate there should be no differentiation between one child and another, that we should get rid of this trouble of what is called the extra district child and, what is more, provide greater scope for allowing a child to be educated where his parents wish him to be educated.
Once again, I thank the Government for setting up the Commission, and I congratulate and thank the Commission on its work.

6.48 p.m.

Sir Cyril Black: I graduated to this House through local government, and during the period of twelve years that I have been a Member I have maintained my interest in and contacts with local government. I have served for nearly twenty years, both on the Surrey County Council and on the Wimbledon Borough Council, and on the Divisional Executive for North-East Surrey. I would not claim to be an expert on local government and even less would I claim to be an expert on education, but I can claim to have had some practical experience of the workings of local government and of education in my part of the Greater London area. I do not believe that the plan outlined in the White Paper can work, and work effectively, in regard either to education or a number of the other services.
I am bound to share the view expressed this afternoon by several hon. Members concerning the disappointing character of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education. I cannot help recalling the episode, possibly apocryphal, which has been related about an event which is supposed to have taken place in the Court of Appeal. The first judge spent a great deal of time in giving a long and not too clear decision on the matter before the Court, whereas the judge who gave the second judgment used only a sentence or two. He said, "For the reasons given by my learned friend, I have come to a conclusion opposite to his." That is exactly my judgment on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education.
The Minister of Education did not at any point in his speech attempt to

demonstrate, nor did he state, that in his opinion the education arrangements outlined in the White Paper would produce a better education service for the children in this area. It is obvious that he could have made no such statement, because the evidence given before the Royal Commission by his own Ministry on this matter is in an exactly opposite and contrary sense. We have already heard this afternoon quotations from the evidence given by the Ministry of Education.
We had the quotation, which I will not read in full, that
There is no part of the area in which the present system of educational administration does not work at least tolerably well.
It goes on to say that
…the Ministry are not disposed to suggest on education grounds any division or amalgamation of the areas of the existing local education authorities.
But the evidence given by the Minister of Education goes very much beyond that.
I want to bring to the notice of the House a further quotation from that evidence which deals conclusively with the scheme that has been adopted by the Government and is outlined in the White Paper. The Royal Commission, of alternatives to the scheme upon which the Government have now decided, and the Commission sought from the Ministry of Education its judgment on that scheme.
The witness on behalf of the Ministry of Education said that
Any scheme for the creation of a cluster of county boroughs in the Metropolitan fringes of Essex, Kent, Surrey or Herts"—
which is the very device upon which the Government have decided—
would have serious educational disadvantages.
We have not heard one word today, nor do I imagine that at any other stage in the debate we shall hear one word, about why there has been this extraordinary change of policy and attitude on the part of the Ministry of Education.
The Minister used a phrase to the effect that education was the cuckoo in the nest in the reorganisation of local government. That seems indeed to have been the position both with the Royal Commission and in the scheme in the


White Paper. The fact is that education requires not too vast an area but an area very much larger than that of a population of 200,000 to give the most effective education service possible to the children of the district.
The Royal Commission had the difficulty that it was dominated in its consideration of the problem by the need to find some overall planning scheme and it regarded other services as being subsidiary to the importance of getting a good planning, roads and traffic scheme. Having found a scheme that met other requirements, particularly planning, roads and traffic, it was left with the cuckoo in the nest of the problem of deciding what to do with education. The Commission said, in effect, that the Greater London Council would not have much to do and what it would have to do would not be very varied or interesting. It said, "We had better give them education and we will fit education into that pigeon-hole". But that solution of the education problem has been rejected, quite rightly, by nearly everybody. I need not spend time in discussing it because I think that there is general agreement on both sides of the House that it is not the right solution.
The Government had the same problem and they resorted to a different expedient. I am not certain whether it is more satisfactory than that of the Royal Commission. I am inclined to think that it is less, because they have adopted the very device which was condemned in specific and categorical terms by the Ministry of Education. They have fragmented the education service and taken it away from the counties and have produced a solution which, as far as I know, has not a single friend among the people who are most competent to speak on the organisation of education. If ever there was a scheme which had no friends among those competent to pronounce upon it, this White Paper scheme qualifies to come out at the very top of the list.
The county education services have never been organised with any regard to district council boundaries, and there was no reason why they should have been so organised. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) dealt

with this matter at some length. However we may try to frame the boundaries of the new and the enlarged boroughs we cannot get a suitable set-up for education within those areas. In some areas there are too many boys' schools and too few girls' schools. In an adjoining district the situation may be the reverse, and the schools are simply not in the right positions.
Unless we are to contemplate an extravagant expenditure on a fabulous scale, which will mean the destruction of a great many schools to build new schools in the right places where they do not exist at present, we cannot get a coherent pattern in education by doing what the Government propose to do. This scheme is opposed, as far as I know, by everyone who is competent to pronounce on the matter. All the teachers' associations in the area are up in arms about it. I know of no responsible educationist who has said one word in support of it.
The Minister brushed aside too lightly the objections of the religious denominations, which will be found to be of a much more serious character than my right hon. Friend was prepared to admit today. I am certain that the parents of the children in the schools will be overwhelmingly against this proposal. The education authorities in the district regard the scheme as being undesirable and reactionary in the extreme. I cannot believe that the Government can contemplate proceeding with this part of the plan which is destructive in large measure of what has been built up over many years in the education service of this area.
The rest of the White Paper has features which are perhaps almost as capable of being criticised as are the education proposals themselves. The White Paper is in some respects just as significant for what it omits to say as for what it says. I want to refer, in this connection, to what it says about attracting people to serve on these new local government bodies. A rosy picture is painted of what the position will be in future.
The White Paper states that
The Government regard this as a key feature of the Commission's plan, and one well designed to attract into local government more men and women of real ability, by making sure that there are worthwhile jobs for them to do".


There is an unfortunate innuendo in that statement, because it certainly contains a criticism of the calibre and competency of those many devoted men and women who are serving upon local authorities, many of whom have given a lifetime of devoted service in a completely unpaid capacity and in a work which is often unrewarding, as those who have experience of it must know.
What the White Paper does not do is to draw attention to the vastly reduced opportunities for service in local government that will be available under the White Paper scheme. Let me take the position in my own local authority area. In Wimbledon, we are represented upon Surrey County Council by six people, two aldermen and four councillors. The best guess as to our representation upon the Greater London Council is that we shall have one representative upon the top tier, where at present we have six representatives.
Our borough council consists of 32 members, aldermen and councillors, but it is obvious that an amalgamation of three or four districts cannot possibly lead to the creation of a council of 150 or 200 members. Therefore—and this is general throughout the area—whereas a council may now consist of 30 or 35 members in a borough with a population of between 50,000 and 60,000, its representation in the future will probably be not more than 12 or, at most, 15 seats. No case has been made that we will get a better calibre of public representative in the future. What is not said, and what is undeniable, is that, if this scheme comes into operation, opportunities for this kind of public service will be not more than about one-third of the existing opportunities for people to serve in local government.
There are two other important matters which involve the efficiency and the economy of the local government service. I hope that I am not saying anything that will introduce a party political note into this discussion if I say that one of the reasons—perhaps the main reason—why I joined, many years ago, the party that at present sits on this side of the House is that in terms of efficient administration and economical management I believed that it had advantages over the party opposite. I do not expect some other hon. Members

to agree with that, but that was one of the factors which induced me, as a business-man, in common with a number of other business-men, to belong to the party of which I am a member.
Let us consider the efficiency and the economy of the scheme. The Greater London Council, as a planning body, has been justified principally on the ground that at present the Government Departments concerned with planning, highways and traffic have to deal with several authorities. They find that to be an inconvenient arrangement and in the interests of efficiency and convenient management they want to be in the position of dealing with one authority instead of several.
Consider, however, how that plan operates in reverse in regard to all the other local government services. If the argument be right in regard to planning, let us see how wrong it is in regard to the other services. In the area that we are discussing, the Ministry of Education has to deal with nine education authorities. According to the best estimate that I can make, in future it will have to deal with about 30 authorities. The Ministry of Health has to deal with nine authorities in matters of welfare and health. In the future, it will have to deal with 34. The Home Office has to deal with nine authorities in reference to the children's service. Under the Government's proposals, it will have to deal with 34 authorities. There will be a vast increase of going and coming, of consultation, of paper work and of keeping the records between the Government Departments concerned and the local authorities owing to the vastly increased number of local authorities with which, under the scheme, Government Departments will have to deal. I do not regard that as an efficient, sensible or economical form of administration.
Now, let me come to the question of economy. The Minister is naive if he believes that the general public, and the ratepayers in particular, will accept this scheme on the basis of the prospectus that he has put out concerning the cost of the scheme. It may be difficult to make estimates, but estimates have been made about what will be the financial effect on what remains of the counties which are to be truncated. The Royal


Commission estimated that in the case of Essex, as a result of the truncation, what was left of the county would have to bear an increased rate of 2s. lid. in the £.
In the case of Surrey, we have made the best estimate we can, and, without making any allowance for the capital expenditure that will be involved in replacing many of the things that will be lost because they will go into the new Greater London Council area, the increased rate will not be less than 1s. 7d. in the £, and may be a good deal more. Of course, the Minister, apart from the most vague generalities, has said nothing about the compensation that will be offered. He is not even clear that compensation will be offered.
When we come to the position in the area of the Greater London Council, the situation is even more remarkable, because this is what the White Paper states:
In the Government's view the financial arrangements should follow consequently on changes which are necessary for other reasons. It would be premature at this stage to set out detailed proposals on finance. There are many factors which make a reliable estimate of the financial consequences of reorganisation impossible at the present time. … The future cost of services when they fall to be carried out by altered or enlarged local authorities cannot be very closely estimated.
As a businessman, I have had a fair amount of experience of the amalgamation of businesses and companies. This is an amalgamation on a huge scale of county councils on the higher tier of government and of district authorities on the lower tier of government. I am certain that in connection with any amalgamation with which I have ever had to deal, if I had sent out a prospectus advocating amalgamation on those nebulous, indefinite terms, I would many years ago have ceased to be the chairman, and I would have lost any connection with the companies over which I preside.
I have never come across a more naive way of dealing with the House, the general public and the general body of ratepayers than to say to them, "Accept a scheme of this kind and, when it has been accepted, we will get down to thinking about the possible financial consequences." This is not good enough.

It is not the kind of scheme which the House or the public ought to be asked to accept in these conditions.
The scheme is condemned at nearly every point. The planning area is the wrong area; the scheme for education, as outlined, is hopelessly wrong and quite destructive of the best interests of the school and education services, and we are left completely in the dark as to its financial implications. As far as I can see, the best thing that the Government can do is to take it away and do some serious thinking, in view of what has been said in this debate, so that a scheme can be produced which is more suited to the conditions that we have to face and more acceptable to the local authorities, the ratepayers, and the general public.
The scheme is condemned, with two abstentions, by the Surrey County Council; it is condemned by 27 of the 33 district councils in the county; it is unanimously condemned by the executive committee of the political association which sent me to the House and—more important than all that, as far as I am concerned—it outrages my idea of common sense and is contrary to my judgment. For that reason, I propose to vote against the Motion and the White Paper and in favour of the Amendment.

7.12 p.m.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: Representing one of the authorities that will be extinguished, and speaking as a member with twenty-eight years' experience of that authority, I, too, would not claim that I am an expert in local government. The best that I can say is that I at least have some conception of what is being done by my authority. That is more than can be claimed by many hon. Members.
I refer, in particular, to the speech made at a late hour last night by the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots). He showed as complete a misconception of the part played by the London County Council in the government of London as it would be possible to imagine. Until we remove such illusions from the minds of people we cannot hope to arrive at a fair judgment of the scheme.
It is evident that the Minister of Education is prepared to sacrifice the


schools and the present system of education to the so-called ideal of local interest. Many speakers today have analysed this local interest, and much has been said of the relationship of parents with the schools. To my mind, that sums up the position.
In the past people talked about the large size of an authority as being reprehensible, because the people were not in touch with it. If they meant that the people were not in touch with the members of the authority, I agree; in the case of very large communities, that would be impossible. But what is important to the persons whom local government tries to serve is surely the humanity and the contact that exists between the public and the servants of a local authority, and in this respect I claim that the London County Council has a reputation second to none.
For reasons given by the Minister, the Government are not prepared to take the advice of the Royal Commission on educational matters. Might it not also be the case that the Royal Commission has given advice on other matters which the House ought not to follow? I want to refer to the evidence given by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on the subject of planning. Planning is put forward as one of the reasons for this drastic reorganisation in the structure of local government. In its evidence the Ministry said:
In theory, one might have expected to find in planning some strong argument for some authority with powers over the whole region, But in practice the plans of the various authorities have been co-ordinated largely through reference to the Abercrombie Plan but partly through informal contacts with Government Departments".
The Ministry went on to say that in approving various local authority plans the Minister had had to make no fundamental changes from the Abercrombie Plan; the biggest changes were in zoning for industry.
I quote that evidence because a great deal of argument for the proposed changes hinges around the subject of planning. We ought to be sure what we mean by planning. In essence, I suppose that it means the proper use of land. One of the things that is in short supply in the Greater London area is land. Its use needs to be very carefully planned. In the planning areas—the nine areas of the

county councils and the county boroughs—it cannot be denied that its use is carefully planned.
Land is set apart for housing, industrial development, open spaces, schools, hospitals, roads, public transport, and all the other uses necessary to great communities. Today, each planning authority takes a long time to make its original plan, and that plan is subjected to scrutiny and public inquiry before being approved by the Minister.
Plans in the London area were coordinated by the Minister in the light of the Abercrombie Plan, which envisaged a great deal of co-ordination for an area far larger than the one it is now proposed the Greater London Council should cover. I would suggest that if, in the past, the Ministry has found it necessary to co-ordinate in the light of the greater area, it is just as necessary that this co-ordination should go on today in the larger area, and I would venture to say that the area becomes ever greater and greater.
I remind the House that the senior research officer of the Ministry itself, talking about regional study groups, said that the one which he was taking was in south-east England and represented the area from which people were able to travel to and from work in London, and he included in his area Brighton. His area is a ring round the Greater London Council area and has a radius as distant from the Greater London Council area as that is from the centre.
I would have thought that anybody now considering any changes would relate those changes to the facts of the situation, and the facts are these. London may be a magnet; the centre of London may be a magnet for offices; but the real magnet today is not so much the centre of London, but the south-east corner of the country. To illustrate this, I would remind Members that the London County Council, in looking for a site for a new town, examined no fewer than 70 possible sites and had for various reasons to reject them all but one. That one was Hook, and Hook is in Hampshire. That illustrates the magnitude of the problem today.
What is the Greater London Council to do about its overspill that London County Council has not already done?


We have gone to Suffolk, we have gone all over the Home Counties, far beyond the Greater London area, to find towns which would be willing to receive our overspill population. I should like, incidentally, to challenge what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South last night in respect of our activity in that area. I can state categorically that the London County Council does not build for any receiving authority except at its express request.
At the same time, it may be as well to assure Members of the skill and expertise which have been built up in the County Council's machine, among its members and staff, for dealing with these very delicate problems of trying to persuade authorities to receive London population when, perhaps, they would rather not have them, an expertise which ought to be retained and not lost. So much for planning.
What of the traffic? What are we being told? Are we being led to expect that the establishment of this new Greater London Council and the boroughs will solve our traffic problems? Is it conceivable that these great physical problems can be so overcome? If they could have been would not the Ministries themselves have been able to assist the existing local authorities to do it? In fact, it is the Ministries which have inhibited the local authorities from getting on with the job.
The original London Plan provided for two ring roads in London—tremendously expensive. The Ministry never agreed to them. So there are no ring roads today, and it is not the fault of the London County Council. Members on this side of the House and the London County Council wished the markets to be taken outside London. What was the Government's response to that? We all know that Covent Garden is to be rebuilt inside London itself and that no attempt is being made to deal with the other markets.
How long was it before the County Council was able to get the money out of the Government to proceed with the schemes which it knew to be essential for traffic in London? It was years. There were the Blackwall Tunnel, the Hyde Park scheme, the Elephant and Castle scheme. I could detail them in

great number, and all of them were held up by, first, the refusal of the money which was necessary for their implementation, and, secondly, by the refusal of the Ministry until at long last we persuaded it, to recognise, that time was an essential element in the question and that long-term plans must be prepared.
In talking about these problems let me refer to another physical difficulty in addition to the difficulties of the shortage of land and the shortage of money—the property rights of the citizen, including those of London. One of the reasons why one cannot proceed faster is that this House insists that a member of the public has rights which cannot be overridden, without, if necessary, public inquiry. All these things have to be considered in conjunction with the fact that this is a time of unparalleled activity in the direction of development and building all over the country. So there is a shortage not only of operational staff, but also of the professional staffs which are needed to carry out those schemes.
I would say to the House that they should not cherish any illusions that the urgent problems of traffic and planning which the Royal Commission says must be solved will be able to be solved even if the changes take place. But when are the changes to take place? These are urgent problems. What is the plan? The plan is that the new authorities will be in existence by 1965—after three years. We waited until 1957 to have the Commission to carry out investigations—and then to tell us what we could very well have told the Commission from the beginning.
Three years will pass before the new authorities come into being, and then they have go to start to build from scratch, with new teams, new people working side by side with one another, with the wealth of their experience dissipated because it has to be employed on other problems. It will take many years to build up the efficiency to which the various bodies now to be truncated have arrived. Let us have no misapprehension whatsoever. We shall, in fact, not be dealing urgently with these problems which we know are before us now. Does the Minister of Transport wait for this? Of course, he does not. He took extraordinary powers unto himself in 1960, and is getting on with the


job which he might very well have got on with many years ago.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance and help, Mr. Speaker, on a matter affecting the position of Members who want to attend to the affairs of the House and wish to take part in them, but who are summoned to a Committee of the House upstairs, specifically Standing Committee E which deals with the Transport Bill?
That Committee has just adjourned, and we have been informed that we are to meet again at half-past eight. Very important matters are coming before the House this evening, in which many London Members are involved. We are most anxious to be here to hear what is taking place, and, maybe, take part in the discussions.
I ask you, therefore, to make such Ruling or take such action as you can in protecting hon. Members from being summoned to other parts of the building and taking part in a Committee or anything else when they themselves want to do their job here and attend in the Chamber? I would ask you to consider the position and take such action as may be necessary.

Mr. Richard Marsh: Further to that point of order. A number of us who represent London constituencies and who wish to take part in the debate now taking place—a debate of quite exceptional importance—and who serve on Standing Committee E, have tried without success to get the Chairman of the Committee to permit us to take part in this debate. We have made representations on behalf of our constituents in that matter, which is a direct constituency interest and of interest to the people of London. There seems to be no good reason at all why this Standing Committee should go on at this exceptional hour. We have tried, but without any success at all, to get assistance upstairs, but it has been refused, and we now have no alternative but to ask for your protection so that we may not be prevented from attending this debate by a Standing Committee sitting upstairs until an exceptional hour.

Mr. Carol Johnson: May I add, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a matter of mere personal convenience,

but a very real conflict of duties. I see no way in which it can be resolved, but many hon. Members are very anxious indeed to take part in the debate in this House, but are called to another part of the building to deal with Amendments which are on the Notice Paper and which will be called for debate when the Standing Committee resumes.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry about this difficulty; we have had it before. I do not think that I can act in the matter myself, because I am at present in the Chair for this debate, which cannot be interrupted, but I will cause communication to be made with the Leader of the House to see whether there can be any assistance from that quarter. That is all that I can do.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Will you please duly inform the House of the result of the discussion, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I will do the best I can for hon. Members in their difficulty.

Mr. Strauss: May I say that I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for what you have said—

Mr. Speaker: Please do not express gratitude yet, because my efforts may fail.

Mrs. Corbet: I was saying, at the moment of interruption that the Minister of Transport has not waited for this change in machinery in order to deal with the traffic problem. He has taken unto himself certain powers with a view to making the best use of London streets that can be made. I could advise the right hon. Gentleman that there are other things he could do as well. He might have a look into the possibility of helping local authorities to deal with the provision of off-street parking places. That is not a profitable concern, as the Fins-bury Park underground garage and the City of London underground garage have only too amply demonstrated. As the L.C.C. pointed out long ago, if anything was to be done about that, money ought to be coming from the Ministry to enable these garages to be built.
Now I want to turn from what I consider to have been criticism of the Ministries for not having done what they should have done to tell the House why some of us are most concerned about


the abolition of the London County Council. Most hon. Members will, perhaps, have received from the Royal Institute of British Architects a memorandum about the architects' department of the London County Council. I need not, therefore, go into any details, except to say that I hope that that memorandum will be most carefully considered by the Minister.
Suggestions are made in it which must undoubtedly clash with the two main principles, for the way to preserve it, as seen by the architects, is to give more work to the Greater London Council. This is logical, and it is what the Royal Commission wanted to do with regard to education. It is the natural, logical position to which many of us have been driven by this difficult problem many years ago.
If this team of architects is to be preserved to be able to carry on with the kind of work that has been done, with the schemes of development which I have already mentioned, it would be necessary to give further powers to the Greater London Council. There is also the question of other L.C.C. staff. There is a very large team of engineers responsible for pumping works, for sewerage works, Thames bridges and for the engineering works on the great road schemes. There are specialists of all kinds, who are able to give advice on all the problems that arise in the design and production of great schemes. There is a large staff of valuers who acquire land for the use of the council, who negotiate to get the best terms. It is very necessary to have experience in London in dealing with large firms whose terms may be very difficult to arrange in the Council's interests.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Would the hon. Lady confirm that she is saying that it is one of the advantages of the administration of the L.C.C. that the valuers do get the very best terms?

Mrs. Corbet: Yes. I would say that in the interests of the people, the valuers should get the best terms they can, and that it is a good thing for the ratepayers.

Mr. Iremonger: I am much obliged.

Mrs. Corbet: I am talking about their negotiations with big property interests,

in which it is necessary that we should make a good deal.
We have also large teams of solicitors because of the legal side of the property work, the work in this House, and so forth. In other words, we have, I suppose, an unparalleled service of professional men all working for the benefit of the people of London. These are teams of men who have worked together and have produced the great schemes we all know about, such as the Lansbury scheme at Poplar, where the East End is being rebuilt, and where we can again begin to see the blue skies about which the Minister of Education talked, the great scheme for Hyde Park Corner, the Piccadilly Circus scheme and all the schemes for which London is justifiably famous. They are the people who enable us to get on with these schemes, the people who find and acquire the land, lay it out, design the buildings and arrange and supervise the construction of buildings all over London, as well as schools and all the other things necessary for the service of the people of London in the great housing schemes which we have carried out.
A great deal has been said about the service that the London County Council renders to the whole of the London area in respect of housing. The schemes could not proceed unless there were in London a central authority with a housing pool which could be used to house people decanted from clearance areas and from areas where schools and roads must be built and open spaces created. As I have mentioned open spaces, perhaps I may be allowed to refer to the new open space in my constituency, one of 137 acres. No fewer than 33 industrial concerns will have to be moved and they cannot be moved within Camberwell. They will have to go outside the borough, in the same way as similar firms have had to go outside the Borough of Southwark in connection with the scheme carried out at the Elephant and Castle. It is open space which will result after thousands of people have been displaced and rehoused.
What authority will carry out such schemes in the future? That open space, and many hundreds of smaller ones which have been created throughout London on a yearly programme, are part


of the London plan. If planning means anything, the London plan will have to be fulfilled. But who will undertake schemes of that kind in the future? Who will take charge of Kidbrooke, for instance? There are 100 acres of land. Is it all to go to the borough in which it lies? Is Greenwich to have the sole benefit of 100 acres?
What will happen to the Woolwich Industrial Trading Estate which the London County Council took over from the Government, and of which has been made the greatest possible use in connection with reallocating businesses displaced from areas of development? Without that estate it would not have been possible to develop those areas. What authority will take on such imaginative schemes as have been undertaken by the L.C.C.—the Royal Festival Hall, the development of the South Bank, the Crystal Palace and the support of the arts? What central authority will there be? What body will take over the L.C.C. area and provide those things to which the inhabitants of London have been long accustomed?
Here, there is a parallel between the benefits of the education service in London and those other benefits conferred on every other area of London by the kind of co-ordinating work which the London County Council has been able to achieve. Some of us envisage great difficulties which will result if these changes are made, and they relate to the take-over period. There have been changes in local government before. In 1929, the boards of guardians in the London area were wound up and their duties transferred to the London County Council. This was one simple operation involving the staffs of the boards which were transferred with their duties to the London County Council. Yet, ten years later, there were still cases which were outstanding. In this proposal there is not one function involved, not one kind of staff, but a dispersal of staffs which must take time and be an extremely complicated operation.
There is no doubt that the Government realise that it will be complicated. In fact, the Minister said that they knew it would be complicated and they could do it only if it were worth while because the complications are so great. But have the Government visualised the situation

which will arise when the old authorities cease to exist on 1st April, 1965? The ending of agreements and the transfer of investments and liabilities cannot possibly take place until after that date.
Have the Government envisaged the possibility of there being no one in County Hall and no one in the Guildhall—no staff left, since everyone is to have the opportunity of employment with other authorities? With whom will the new authorities be able to work? Have they visualised that the one operation which resulted from the 1929 Act and which took so long will surely have its counterpart in this proposal, in this very complicated operation which will take many years to perform?
Apart from that, have they seriously considered how many years it will take before there will be available to the people of London the same efficient service as they now enjoy? I ask the Government to think carefully over their proposals. It is no light thing to deprive the people of the great advantages which they have known and to replace them with a system the advantages of which we cannot guarantee, and about which we must be very doubtful.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) said, during the amusing speech which he made last night, that he had received 150 letters on this subject in recent days. It is clear from the tremendous attendance of hon. Members representing constituencies in Surrey—my hon. and gal-land Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) is still seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—that the population of Surrey has been whipped into a lather by the proposals of the Government.
So far as I am concerned, however, this is a case of the dog which did not bark I have been impressed by the lack of interest shown in my area and the absence of representations to me. Since the beginning of this month I have received more letters about the inequities of the discrimination in the taxation on greyhound racing than on this topic.
I believe this silence to be typical of the reaction of the vast majority of the population to local government in


London and the Home Counties. Of course, London local government is conducted openly, but from the point of view of its impact on the population it might as well be carried on in secret. Take, for example, the L.C.C. Education Committee's recent proposals for the cannibalisation of about fifteen grammar schools. I was once a member of that Committee and, as a Member of Parliament, I read the newspapers assiduously, but these new proposals came to me with all the sudden shock of the I.C.I. bid to take over Courtaulds.
I believe that we know less about the government of London than about the government of any other major city in the free world. I do not accuse the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) of furtiveness in this matter, athough she has been accused in the past by the Spectator of seeking to suppress debate in County Hall. I believe that almost the only way in which one can hope to get the affairs of the London County Council reported in the Press of London is to close all the meetings and mark every document top secret, and then, perhaps, somebody will take notice of them.
The reason for that is not failure on the part of the Council. I think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) touched on the real reason in his speech. The structure of the local Press in London and in the Home Counties seems to combine to suppress interest in county council government. After all, the local borough papers are interested in the affairs of the local borough council. They hardly ever report the doings of the L.C.C. Our two great evening newspapers, the Evening Standard, and the Evening News, give adequate national and international coverage, but when it comes to local matters they cover the happenings in the Savoy Grill a great deal better than they do the goings-on in County Hall. I, therefore, do not believe that it is possible to make an effective public impact at county council level.
The same applies in Kent. The affairs of the Beckenham and Penge Councils receive adequate coverage in the local newspapers, but when it comes to Maidstone and the goings-on in County Hall there, almost nothing is reported, and

the view of the average man in my constituency about Maidstone is more or less the same as the view that Colonel Glenn had of the Canary Islands this afternoon—very distant and mostly obscured by cloud. This lack of interest does, I think, lend considerable support for the view which my council has held for many years, that in association with some of its neighbours it ought to have county borough status.
In view of our geographical position on the fringes of London, I believe that the Government's proposals are about the best that we could possibly have hoped for, and I have every intention of supporting them. I am particularly glad that we are to be responsible for education. If this were not so, I think that there might have been some point in trying to support a "Katanga lobby"—and my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has also been trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think that we are reasonably content, and that we shall be able to carry out the duties that are laid upon us.
After all, the county borough, or the London borough, which we will become, and all the London boroughs on the fringe will be considerable organisations. In population we are to be larger than Southampton or Portsmouth, and almost as large as Leicester. In size we are to be larger than either Manchester or Liverpool. We are to be almost as large as Croydon, and the passion with which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) defended the independent status of his borough last night suggests that there can be little dissatisfaction with the state of services there, so I have no doubt that, with the able and public servants that we have, we shall be able to provide the services that are required.
What will be the effect on Kent if we are wrenched away from it? This pattern of moving into single-tier all-purpose authorities is not solely confined to the London district, although this debate is so confined. Throughout the country local government boundary commissions are making recommendations, and when the recommendations that have been made are implemented, Kent, even with the extraction of metropolitan Kent, will move up to second place in the size


of counties. It will move up from sixth to second place. Even if the Medway towns and the Isle of Thanet are removed, Kent will be third in rank among the counties. I join Alderman Parkin the author of a paper in the Kent Ratepayers' Magazine, When he says:
Kent should emerge as a financially sound and more compact authority able better to serve the remaining districts and a leader among the remaining Counties.
To turn from the fringe to the centre. I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education in his presentation of the case this afternoon. It seemed to me that he was reasonably lukewarm about the educational proposals involved, and I share a reasonable lukewarmness for them, but I think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North had a strong point when he pressed the question of the financial arrangements which will be made in the centre, because, if we have an independently and directly elected local education authority for the centre of London responsible for education, but with no desire to keep down the level of rates, coming face to face with a number of authorities who have no direct responsibility for education but a strong desire to keep down the level of rates, who will be in a position to arbitrate in such conditions? I think that the issues will be complex, and I am beginning to come towards the joint board solution.
I am also concerned about the method of election of the Greater London Council. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) in his speech last night suggested that the powers of this Council would be so restricted that it would be almost impossible to drag more than about 5 per cent. of the electorate to the polls. I believe that the exact reverse will be true. Under the proposals of the Royal Commission, which have certainly not yet been rejected by the Government, it is proposed to have elections of the most glamorous sort every three years—one member for one Parliamentary constituency.
Whether the local issues will be strong or not, every political observer in the country will look on this election as a little General Election, and immense efforts will be made to whip the faithful to the polls and to get the most attractive candidates to stand in the elections.

This having been a tremendously high-powered show, and having got these tremendously high-powered people to take part in the election, they will then be members of a Council which in effect will be nothing more and nothing less than a traffic Parliament. They will not be able to discuss planning day in, day out. They cannot discuss fire services or ambulance services to any great extent. What will they be left with? They will be left to argue about traffic. There will be 110 people talking interminably about one-way streets. Far from needing a traffic parliament, what we want is a traffic dictator.
They are not going to be content with that. In time they will get round the rules of order. I remember the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) making a splendid speech, quite within the rules of order, about the foreign policy of the Kremlin and the State Department on the Hyde Park (Underground Parking) Bill, because he suggested that it had a civil defence use. On a Motion to discuss roads in southeast London there could be debates lasting four or five days on the Common Market, if some intelligent people are elected to the Greater London Council. Do we really want to have this sort of second Parliament? We shall get it if we have direct elections of one member from each constituency. With these powers we should give very serious consideration to indirect elections.
On the whole, I support the Government's plan. I believe that it will be of great benefit in making local government more local. I close with a quotation from a letter sent to me by a leader of our local council, Alderman Parkin. He says:
The feeling of being ineffective rubber stamps to a distant authority should be replaced by the old idea of having proper and more understanding local control.
This scheme will bring this about.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: I hope that what I shall say will not be regarded as being partisan, because I am a member of an authority which is to be completely abolished under these proposals. I have been a member of the Middlesex County Council now for twenty-eight years. For a long time I have been in some position of authority,


either in a minority or in a majority, and, therefore, to some extent responsible for carrying out effectively the policy which was required or criticising it, as the case may be.
I am no longer particularly worried about putting "County Alderman" before my name. I am not even worried whether or not I enjoy the honour of putting "Deputy-Lieutenant" after it. What I am concerned about here is the problem of local government as such. I am much more concerned about that than I am about individuals. The interest of individuals very often enters into these questions and one begins to look at them perhaps rather selfishly. I will try to divest myself of that in the criticisms I have to offer of the White Paper.
This afternoon we heard a speech from the Minister of Education. I did not think that it was a very good speech. In fact, I did not think that the Minister spoke with conviction. Before he got very far through his speech I came to the conclusion that the Cabinet has a fairly good idea of what to do about brain-washing, which we hear is resorted to in some other countries. I base this conclusion on a comparison of what has been said in the past by the Ministry of Education and what the Minister said today. Some references have already been made to some of the things which were said to the Royal Commission, both in written and oral evidence. I have pages of it here. I could spend the next hour on quotations which entirely and absolutely refute everything that the Minister said this afternoon.
Why has there been this about-turn? What has caused it? The cause is that the Government did not like the Royal Commission's Report. They did not like it because it proposed that education should be divided. The Government were subjected to a great deal of pressure from the authorities which thought they were going to be full education authorities to do something about it and overcome their disappointment. Therefore, all that was said about two-tier education and the necessity for planned education had to go by the board.
I shall return to the question of the cost of local government services, in

which education has its share. Education accounts for a far larger proportion of local government services than any other services operated by local authorities. In many areas it accounts for 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. In some cases it accounts for 90 per cent. Taken over the London area as a whole it is probably fair to say that it accounts for 60 per cent. This, in terms of expenditure, has to be completely distorted to fit into another pattern for another purpose. The Government have got this the wrong way round. The Minister should have made a more vigorous defence of his service.
I ask hon. Members to consider what has been done about education. I look at it from the Middlesex point of view. The present system of colleges—technical colleges and other departments of further education—has never been on the basis of county districts. It has been on the basis of convenience from the point of view of travel. It has been on the basis of the availability of sites. I do not know how these colleges are going to fit into the new scheme. We have colleges which are only very slightly lower in status than colleges of advanced technology. Many of them are doing exactly the same work and running the same courses for the same honours.
What will happen to them? The answer is that the Government will take them over. Contrary to what local authorities think, they will find that the difficulty of managing these colleges by local authorities will be insurmountable. I warn those authorities which think that they have a lot of power coming to them that the Government will find that many things will be insurmountable, and that the only thing for them to do in the circumstances will be to collect them together under the umbrella of the central authority. We shall not get more local government. We shall get less local government. We must be perfectly clear as to the ultimate outcome, whether the Government like to admit it now or not.
The functions of the Greater London Council have been mentioned. What will it have to do? It cannot be concerned with planning every day. Fire brigades more or less run themselves. In the majority of authorities they do not require much supervision. This applies


also to ambulances. Main drainage runs itself—at least, I hope that it does. Therefore, there will not be very much for the Greater London Council to do.
It has been suggested that there should be 110 members. This will be a small number in relation to the constituent authorities. It will be a very poor local authority representation. It is, in fact, not local authority representation at all. Somebody will have to find these people something else to do. Therefore, the tendency will be, when the body is in existence—this has happened consistently through history—to collect more and more services towards the centralised authority because it will be more efficient, It may be more bureaucratic, but it will prove itself to be more efficient and cheaper.
I ask hon. Members to think of the proposals. Instead of five children's officers, there will be 34, because each authority is under a statutory obligation to appoint a children's officer. It is not a question of whether it has any right not to appoint one. It must appoint one by law. I do not think that they are obliged to appoint welfare officers, but they will all want welfare officers. Instead of five there will be 34. It will go on through the whole gamut. We shall not get fewer local government officers under this scheme. There will be far more. No wonder the Government are a little chary about giving any information on the cost. If the Government gave any true indication of what the cost will be, the electorate would take far more interest in this matter than it has taken up to now.
These factors should be taken into consideration. I hope that they will be, not only here, but in the constituent bodies which are concerned in these proposals. The Royal Commission's conclusion on education was that it had to be treated as a whole. It should not be fragmented. It came to the conclusion that the only effective way to run the education system in Greater London was to have a two-tier authority.
I was giving evidence to the Royal Commission and I was under considerable pressure on this question. It was unfortunate that certain authorities in Middlesex did not approach this matter objectively. I am referring to the evidence which they tendered, for they used

it as an occasion on which to attack the County Council. They were really in full cry for county borough powers and anything was good enough to thrust home their point of view. As a result of this, I had to correct a great deal of misrepresentation that had resulted from that evidence and in doing so I was unable to make clear the more constructive things which the County Council had proposed and was proposing to do.
It should be pointed out that it is a long time since Middlesex County Council virtually reached agreement on the transfer of its functions in order to give county districts certain powers concerning health and welfare. Unfortunately, the Government intervened when these proposals for local government reorganisation were about to be made effective, and the scheme was stopped. It is a pity that we did not progress further with that scheme which had been virtually agreed by all the authorities. Had we continued, a great many of the problems we face today would not be with us.
It left us in the position of being on the defensive at that stage and nothing constructive really emanated. On neither side from Middlesex was a constructive picture presented about what the structure of local government should be. Had such a picture been shown at that time the Royal Commission might have come to a rather different conclusion. Considering the planning authority, it appears that the views of the county councils have been very summarily brushed aside by the Minister. In fact, I do not believe that those views have even been studied by him. If they had, the comments in the White Paper would not have been made.
The Minister referred to a body with no executive authority but I urge him to realise that it all depends on how one looks upon the word "executive". I use the word not from the point of view of planning, but from the other side of the picture; an authority which carries out the physical part of the various activities—but not necessarily the planning of those tasks.
An unfortunate phrase to use when referring to a planning board is "joint board". It is a "dirty" phrase in local government and I hope that it will remain so. I do not like joint


boards and I would not have them if there was any other way of their functions being performed. This whole subject could have been examined a little more closely by the Minister. Had it received equally close examination by other parties, a better proposal might have been arrived at.
After all, the proposal includes not only the representatives of the counties concerned, but also the appointment by the Minister of independent members or representatives to be appointed from such sources as the right hon. Gentleman might designate. Could it not have been a more effective body having a wider range of experience than is likely to come from a body such as that now proposed—the Greater London Council? I would not have objected if there had been more independent members on it than the number of representatives of the authorities, as long as it was effective for the work of preparing its plans.
It has been suggested that there would be no need to break up the existing authorities in order to put the plans into effect for their areas. When we talk about planning and traffic let us recognise that the proposed body, by itself, will be able to do nothing to deal with the traffic problems of Greater London, for these problems are due to the vested interests of property. Until someone finds the money to really deal with this matter—and that someone must obviously be the Government—nothing will be done. I often think of the opportunities that presented themselves immediately after the war, when great areas of bombed London could have been used for solving this problem and laying out new roads, but nothing was done.
This lack of activity cannot be blamed on the failure of the L.C.C. or the adjoining councils. The answer is merely that the cost of compensation was so terrific that no one, not even the Government, was prepared to undertake the task. That is the real reason why nothing was really done about London's traffic. Unless the Government face up to this problem the creation of a Greater London Council, even with planning and traffic powers, will not settle it. The tremendous sums involved to solve this

and provide the necessary new roads system is a task that can be undertaken by no one but the Government. Thus let us, once and for all, wash out any ideas about the proposed authority being able to solve London's traffic and planning problems.
I have already referred to the question of cost and I am automatically led on to the question of staffing, for a grave problem arises concerning the staffs of the authorities which are to be extinguished. The same problem arises for those authorities which are to be truncated, those to be joined together and those which are, in some cases, to be extended. It is difficult to equate the types of officers, services and work that will be undertaken by all of these new authorities, especially those whose work will be extended. I would have thought that by now the Minister would have come to some conclusion about the type of machinery which should be set up to deal with the problem of transferring staff and any additional staffing requirements that will arise. Unless something effective is done, say, by the appointment of a staffing authority which will have the power to act, to interview, appoint staff and direct to the various services, difficulties will arise over the transfer of these duties.
The whole thing will not work without some direction being given. The appointment of some sort of authority to handle these matters of transfer could consult with other authorities about what should be done. If the Minister will now make a statement on the type of machinery he has in mind it would go a long way to set the minds at rest of so many people who have done excellent work in the past, but who, because of the proposals, are being caused considerable anxiety.
Housing presents some interesting problems. It is particularly interesting in Middlesex, which was frustrated some time ago when it sought certain housing powers. We in Middlesex were frustrated by the boroughs which, considering that the county had enough powers, anyway, did not want to give it housing powers. Thus, the difference between housing in London and Middlesex presents an interesting picture. In London, for example, taking the post-war period from 1st April, 1945, and based on the


statistics available, the metropolitan boroughs between them built 20·9 dwellings per 1,000 of the population. The City of London did very well by building 112·2 dwellings per 1,000—but that figure represented only 516 dwellings, anyway.
The L.C.C. built 32·7 dwellings per 1,000 of the population and, considering that, it is interesting to look at the figures for Middlesex and it is worth remembering that it has been admitted that the overspill problems of the county are second only to those of London and, in some respects are equal to those of the capital in proportion to the population. We find that the total for Middlesex is 22·3 dwellings per 1,000 against the figure for London which, although it would be difficult to equate, represents little more than the Metropolitan boroughs put together, per 1,000 of the population.
As I have said, had Middlesex been given the Housing powers it required many more houses would have been built in and out of the county. The picture I have given shows how some county districts have stood in the way of a county that was willing to do a job that urgently required being done. Their standing in the way prevented us in Middlesex from doing this job properly, so there is something on the other foot that must be considered. This is the question of what the county could have done if given the powers.

Mr. Barter: The hon. Member has given the comparative figures of London and Middlesex. In his figures for London building did he include building outside the county, on land beyond the county's boundaries? Should he not bear in mind, when making these comparisons, the differences between the areas, some of which were devastated during the war and, therefore, made available for housing development?

Mr. Pargiter: Some of the houses were built inside and some outside the boundaries, but the point is that the houses were built because the powers were available.
There has been a proposal that town clerks should be invited to hear the objections and observations of the boroughs in the Greater London area and then refer their recommendations to

the Minister. Peripheral areas where two-tier authorities have been in being might wish to opt out—as part of the Minister's plan that there should be room for manœuvre in peripheral areas—and town clerks who have been concerned only with large county boroughs, and so only with single-tier authorities, are hardly the appropriate officers to deal with this matter and to make representations.
I would have no objections to two clerks, a county clerk and a town clerk, doing it between them because we might then get somewhere near a good balance, but I do not think that these inquiries should rest solely on the views of town clerks—not that they are not excellent men—whose personal experience was limited. I hope that some reconsideration, therefore, will be given to that proposal.
Another difference which distinguishes outer London from London itself occurs in the administration of justice. It is extraordinary that this plan should have been put forward without any reference to the administration of justice. In London, there are the London Sessions and stipendiary magistrates. While they are not the concern of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, it is the Government and not only a particular Minister who are presenting these proposals. What will be done about magistrates, petty sessional divisions, quarter sessions?
For instance, are we to have quarter sessions sitting for part of Essex and part of the new County of London? Are we to have stipendiary magistrates over the whole of the area so that there is some uniform system in Central London, possibly with the London Sessions extended over the whole of the Greater London area? After all, it should not be forgotten that justices of the peace give their time every day and ought to be given some idea of where they are going. It might have been thought that in the preparation of a paper of this kind some thought would have been given to problems of that kind.
There are two services which are complementary and which are also affected—food and drugs, and weights and measures. Middlesex is a single authority for dealing with weights and


measures, for example. Is that responsibility to be broken up? Are we to have 34 authorities dealing with weights and measures, and with food and drugs? If we do, the situation will be chaotic. The tendency has been precisely the reverse and is now for large food factories to send out canned or packed goods which have to be dealt with at source, not having a dozen inspectors running around and in each area finding a can of peas short of weight, all the different inspectors dealing with that one aspect of the matter. Having regard to the great amount of food and drugs now packed or canned in factories, it is the factories where we want the inspectors, not so much at the selling end as at the beginning. The same is true of weights and measures and their verification. It would be chaotic if the system were broken up and many new units were created.
I would like to know from where it is proposed to find the staff? We find it difficult to get qualified staff now when these things are run as unified services. What will happen when the system is completely broken down I do not know. I suppose that it will be a completely broken-down service. I am satisfied that the staff will not be available unless someone gives some thought to some degree of centralisation for many of these services.
All these things should make the boroughs consider whether they will get out of these proposals all that they have thought. I return to the theme that in the long run many of them will lose the substance which could be obtained now by a system of conferment and of delegation and of the retention of the existing counties without upheaval. Systems of delegation have worked very well throughout the country as a whole. Apart from the proposals for Greater London, the Government themselves are committed to a two-tier system in parts of the country, and there is not all that difference between London government and outside government, although it suits the Government to say that there is. But when it comes to the practical facts of local government, there is not all that difference.
There is quite sufficient cause for the Government to think again. I shall be

happy to go into the Lobby against the Government tonight, but I would be much happier if the Government said that, having regard to all the criticisms offered from both sides of the House, they will think again.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) because I happen to serve on the same local authority as he does, although on the other side of the fence. I should like to begin by making it clear that I shall support the Government in the Division Lobby tonight, although not by any means as an enthusiastic supporter of the plan. I have no parochial interest, either, for I am not a Surrey fringe Member. The debate has been a valuable means of testing opinion, but we are in no way committing ourselves by voting to take note of the White Paper. Those of us who have doubts about the proposals are, therefore, perfectly entitled to support the Motion.
I declare my interest by saying that I am a member of the Middlesex County Council and the chief whip of the majority group on that council. My constituency of Brentford and Chiswick is one of the affected areas. In addition, I do not speak from any prejudice about Middlesex County Council, because it worries me not that my membership is almost certain to come to an end in 1965, even if there is no election before that.
I find that opinion is genuinely divided among hon. Members, for a variety of reasons, and also there is a division of opinion among people who are connected with local government outside the House. There is a genuine conflict of views about whether the plan will work.

Mr. Pargiter: The hon. Member speaks of a division of opinion, but will he not agree that Middlesex County Council is unanimously opposed to the White Paper, and that, presumably, he is a party to that decision?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is less than fair in the way he makes that point. The Middlesex County Council is at the moment against the plan—I give him that—but there is a genuine difference of opinion among individuals on the council who wonder how it will work or whether, indeed, the Government are


determined to go ahead with the plan and make it work.
My own local authority, which is Conservative-controlled, is very realistic about the plan. It supports it and at a meeting tonight, at about this time, I think, it is to pass a resolution saying so. Apart from that, it objects violently to the proposed amalgamation which has been suggested for it. I think it fair to say that most of the boroughs of the Greater London area support the plan, but most are not at all happy about the prospective bedfellows which have been arranged for them. This has been revealed during our debate.
Throughout my adult life, I have been interested in or connected with local government, although I cannot claim the experience of the hon. Member for Southall or my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black). During the time I have been associated with local government, I have always thought that the essential element in government, once we get away from Westminster, was that it should be local in pattern, that it should have as many powers as possible, and work on as small a scale as possible, bearing in mind that efficiency must be maintained and costs kept low. Too often, we have heard the complaint that local government, not only in London but elsewhere, is remote, inaccessible and not a true reflection of the geographical area. Now that for my constituency of Brentford and Chiswick it is envisaged that there will come in Heston and Isleworth, Feltham, and for good measure, Staines and Sunbury-on-Thames as well, I think that that grouping will fit all the three expressions of criticism I have just recalled. I am sure that the majority of people in my area do not want it and they will do their best to negotiate better terms. I am glad that my right hon. Friend is keeping an open mind about negotiations and that he will listen to the representations made by the boroughs affected.
My main doubts about the proposals are these. In the first place, I think that they take too much of the local aspect out of local government and they will encourage that remoteness which has always been so hard to combat in a massive dormitory area like London. I agree that, if we are to make the scheme work, it is better to have the larger-sized

authorities, and I think that the Royal Commission's suggestion of 100,000 put the figure too low. I think it will make for greater efficiency to have larger areas with many enlarged functions coming within their orbit, although, of course, they are to be enlarged primarily to accommodate education, as opposed to what the Royal Commission recommended. Here again, I wonder whether they will be able to tackle the whole subject of education as efficiently as the county authorities have been able to do. We know the disproportionate rate cost taken for education. About 80 per cent. of the rates goes on education. I feel that this will become an overwhelming problem when it comes down to borough level within the Greater London area.
My second worry, like that expressed by many hon. Members on both sides, relates to the financing of the new local government set-up. The multiplication of services, as the hon. Member for Southall pointed out, will be very great indeed, and I am sure that the services which for the moment are controlled by counties will become very much more costly once they are administered by the various county boroughs. The ratepayers for the Greater London area are in for a considerable shock in 1965, quite apart from the ever-increasing burdens now being put on their shoulders which have to be admitted because of the great demands for extra money spent on education.
The White Paper has been based, in effect, on the Report of the Royal Commission. The Report was anything but dull. It made very interesting reading, and, as my right hon. Friend said yesterday, it will serve in some ways as an excellent textbook or reference book on local government in the years to come. However, as far as I know, few, if any, members of the Royal Commission had any local government service behind them. I can understand the idea of bringing fresh minds to bear on the problem of unscrambling the authorities and functions in a gigantic area such as the whole of Greater London, but, in my view, to appoint such a Commission without including people with local government experience was rather like setting up a Commission to investigate our procedure and amend our ways in the House of Commons without appointing a Privy


Councillor or even a humble backbencher to serve on it. I should have thought that local government experience would have been an essential qualification for anyone to get the "feel" of the whole problem and the way it had to be tackled.
My second criticism of the Royal Commission is that there seemed to be a great lack of field work done by it within the area under consideration. All the way through its Report, I felt that there was a strong inner-London bias and a bias somewhat against the Greater London area. For instance, the Commission spent two days looking at Middlesex, Surrey, Essex and Kent, I think, and nine days with the London County Council. The Greater London area was treated rather as an ancillary part.
I regret also that the Commission did not find time to visit just under half of the municipal boroughs, yet it went to all the metropolitan boroughs. To mention two that it missed, it did not go to Brentford and Chiswick or to Southgate in North London which I am fortunate enough to represent on the Middlesex County Council. I should have thought that, unless they had personal private knowledge of these and other boroughs which they did not see, they would not have an idea of what type of appearance these boroughs presented, or of whether they would fit in harmoniously with the amalgamations being lined up for them.
Again, I think that I agree with what the hon. Member for Southall said about the condemnation of Middlesex by the Royal Commission. I believe that it was unduly harsh and was brought about by the evidence of some boroughs which were admittedly seeking greater powers for themselves. In some cases they were larger boroughs seeking county borough status. The relationship between the Middlesex County Council and the boroughs has not been as bad as all that, certainly not in my experience.
It is a good idea that boroughs should have greater powers—far greater than their powers at the moment—but there is a good case for keeping the Middlesex County Council in some format or other. Middlesex is not just a pedestrian, insignificant authority which is easily disbanded. It has a population of the size of New Zealand's, and a budget

which is comparable to that of New Zealand. It is the second largest county in population, and some of us think that it is the second most important county in the country.
Those of us who serve on the county council and who are connected with the county are entitled to ask where its services have failed over the years and why it has merited the death sentence which is to be passed on it. The Royal Commission provided a far from convincing argument for complete abolition. I wonder whether the new structures will provide at least as good services, and at no greater cost, as those provided at present. All the indications are that there will be a tremendous upheaval which will be so vast that some services are bound to be impaired.
As a member of Middlesex County Council, I am sorry to see its proposed end. But, on the other hand, I shed no tears for the proposed abolition of the London County Council. I have always regarded the L.C.C. as a monolithic structure.

Mr. Cliffe: The hon. Gentleman has spoiled a good speech.

Mr. Smith: I am expressing a purely personal view. I have always regarded the L.C.C. as a monolithic structure taking a doctrinaire approach to so many different subjects. As my right hon Friend the Minister of Education said today, many people are horrified at the proposals which have recently been put forward on comprehensive schools. If ever an authority wrote its own death warrant it was the L.C.C. Of all the bodies involved in these proposals, the L.C.C. settled its own hash long ago.
Although this is a partisan point of view, I do not accept the allegation made by Members opposite that this scheme is being put forward purely and simply with the idea of getting rid of the L.C.C. The Royal Commission was completely unbiased and had no political axe to grind. It was unanimously in favour of getting rid of the L.C.C. At the same time it was in favour of getting rid of the Tory controlled Middlesex County Council. I think that the Government, in their wisdom, are entitled to go ahead with the White Paper without any implication of political bias.
There are also several minor technical points which I wish to refer to. One is that the Greater London Council could be a very useful body, but I do see a danger of its becoming another L.C.C. Unless we are careful, it could become impossibly remote.
I do not favour the proposal that there should be one representative from each Parliamentary constituency. There seems to be a virtually unanimous opinion against that on both sides of the House. What will be the position of the boroughs which finally cannot agree on the proposed amalgamations? Supposing that two or three of them are at loggerheads? I do not like the idea of town clerks being called in to preside over formal negotiations. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government consider setting up an independent tribunal of local government experts to make final decisions where various boroughs are at loggerheads?
What about the naming of the new boroughs? Heaven forbid that we should have a Soviet method, calling them "Block Group 1", "Block Group 2" and so on. There is a danger that local loyalties will be severely damaged if the largest boroughs in the various groupings make take-overs and impose their own names on the new areas. We shall have to try to think out entirely new names for those areas under review. Otherwise considerable confusion is bound to be caused.
There are also the general difficulties of staff, properties, liabilities and financial arrangements. Middlesex has twenty welfare homes situated outside the county. In one case only one home is in a borough, whereas in another place there are six or seven homes. The question of the provision of schools will have to be looked at very carefully. Generally Middlesex has regard to the catchment area rather than the boundaries of local authorities. As a result there will be considerably unequal distribution throughout the whole of the Greater London area. The proposed borough No. 32, Barnet, Finchley and Hendon, will have a population of 248,645 and eleven grammar schools, while borough No. 30, Wembley and Willesden, with a larger population, 295,678, will have only seven grammar schools.
This kind of thing could be duplicated over the whole of the proposed Greater London area. I should have thought that consideration ought to have been given to such vital items as sewage disposal, land drainage, food and drugs and weights and measures, the last two of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Southall. They have not been allocated to the new Greater London authority, or the new boroughs.
I shall end my speech now because I know that other hon. Members want to get into the debate. Although I have voiced criticisms of this plan, and I think that it is a controversial experiment, it might possibly work. Obviously, the Government think that they are on the right course in this matter. It is certainly a novel and a real attempt to bring coordination and planning to London and on that score it perhaps deserves some measure of support. I particularly urge the Government at this stage to take another look at the timetable, because I do not believe that the operation can be carried out to the timetable which has been laid down. I should have thought that it would cause far too much confusion if that were attempted.
I also hope that the Government will look at the detailed provisions and be very elastic in their attitude to the various amalgamations proposed among the boroughs. I disagree with a large number of my colleagues who support the White Paper in general. If it is to succeed I think that we must make quite sure that the new authorities in Greater London are efficient, well-integrated and fully cohesive. Above all, whatever happens, we must make them work.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cliffe: I have heard most of the debate of the last two days. What has struck me more than anything else is that even from hon. Members opposite, with only two exceptions, there have been reservations about the proposals we are discussing. One noted that they wanted to make certain points. Perhaps the worst two speeches were those made by the two Ministers who have taken part. The case made yesterday by the Minister of Housing and Local Government was extremely bad. He left out of his speech some of the services which are being performed by local authorities in the Metropolitan area. I do not


suggest that they were deliberately left out. It might have been unintentional because there was a time factor involved. Perhaps he forgot that Metropolitan boroughs have done and are doing a considerable amount of housing. The relationship between the Metropolitan boroughs and London County Council could not be better on housing.
I do not believe that the figures submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) showing the percentage of houses built by London which in the Metropolitan areas could have been achieved without co-ordination between the L.C.C. and the metropolitan boroughs. There have been excellent arrangements, which have worked very well. The London County Council has dealt with the greater number of the families affected under open-space provisions. The L.C.C. has dealt with emergency cases in respect of houses which were dangerous structures, when local authorities had no property reserve for such emergency cases. The L.C.C. has dealt not only with open-space provisions but with school extensions in this respect.
In addition, there has been an excellent working arrangement between the L.C.C. and local authorities in London. Often people who have been unrooted under slum-clearance programmes have not wanted to go to the new towns or out-county. People who had worked or lived in London all their lives were anxious to remain in London. Because of the excellent working arrangement with the L.C.C. and the fact that it was doing housing developments within the Metropolitan area in addition to housing developments out-county, these families have been accommodated and taken care of.
Under the new proposals it is suggested that the enlarged local authorities in due course will be housing authorities and that the Greater London Council will deal with overspill. I do not know what advantage this will bring to the Metropolitan boroughs. They are built-up areas, and I doubt whether there is a single borough in Central London with an inch of ground on which to develop, apart from areas where it must pull down property before it can build. What possible advantage can there be in

elevating these authorities to the position of housing authorities when they have no land to develop for housing? How will they deal with the thousands of people who are still on their housing lists?
Another point which the Minister apparently forgot yesterday was that a meeting between the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee and a Committee of the L.C.C. agreed that a number of the health services should be returned to the Metropolitan boroughs. This was in 1955, and the agreement included such services as maternity and child welfare, health visitors and a number of others. Some of the powers were conferment powers and some were delegated powers. But this agreement has never been put into effect, because the Minister has held the situation as it is since 1955. The agreement has never been implemented.
Education is probably the most vital and important subject which has been discussed in this two-day debate. The future depends largely on our educational establishments and the manner in which they are conducted. Having heard the Minister of Education's speech today, I think that it is important that we should be clear about the evidence which was submitted by the Department to the Royal Commission. In its evidence, it stated that the London County Council is an efficient authority, that it has set a very high standard of school building and design, and is carrying out an imaginative programme for the rehabilitation of old schools, and that its proposals for the reorganisation of school accommodation to deal with the shifts of population are sensibly conceived and executed. This is the Ministry's evidence about the manner in which education in the London area is being conducted through the medium of the London County Council. What possible excuse the Minister can have for what he said today I cannot conceive.
Despite the evidence put before the Royal Commission, it is suggested that the responsibility for education should be divided between authorities with a wider range area of population and authorities with a narrower range area of population. The Government's White Paper rejects the Royal Commission's proposals. The Government say that the Greater London Council would be


too big to be an education authority. They recognise that there is a central area which could not be divided up but which would have to be administered as one area for educational purposes. The outer boroughs are to be autonomous educational authorities.
The Government's White Paper refers to a central area containing 2 million people. That is not the present administrative County of London, because the whole object of the exercise is to destroy the administrative county. I have looked at the Government's map of the proposed Greater London boroughs in an attempt to find the central area. The constituency which I have the honour to represent has as its postal districts, in the main, E.C.I and E.C.2. We, therefore, have a right to assume that it will form part of the central area. It is proposed in the White Paper that Finsbury should become part of Islington. No one will dispute that Finsbury is in Central London and should be part of the central education authority. In that case, the boundary will start at Moorgate in the City and will finish at Highgate, thirteen miles away. The proposal for a Central London area for education is nonsense, and one can only assume that the Government are determined to get rid of the London County Council, whatever the consequences and whatever effect their future education policy will have on the youngsters of London.
Inevitably the Government's proposal must be taken back. If not, it will do the greatest possible disservice to the social services in London. If, as has been suggested by one hon. Member opposite, this new Greater London Council has on it one representative from each enlarged borough, elections will take on the pattern of a Parliamentary election, with a good deal more enthusiasm than has been shown in the county council elections, and a higher percentage of people will take part in those elections. The scheme is a grave mistake. I hope that as a result of the speeches made on both sides of the House the Government will decide to take it back and think again.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): On a point of order. Further to a point of order raised earlier today, it might be convenient

for the House to know that, as a result of the exchanges that have taken place, the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill will not be meeting this evening and that, therefore, its members will be available to hear the rest of this debate.

Mr. Strauss: I should like to express gratitude, on behalf of myself and many of my colleagues, for the intervention of the Leader of the House in getting the Committee adjourned so that we may attend this debate this evening.

Mr. George Brown: We have had a very interesting debate, marked by two of the oddest Ministerial speeches it has been my pleasure to listen to and some very impressive speeches by those on both sides of the House who know most about the subject. It is interesting to note how completely those who know most about the subject have opposed the proposals in the White Paper. There was the exception of the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith) who, I gather, is as strongly against it as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), but unlike him, despite his objections to the scheme, has said that he will vote for it though not as an enthusiastic supporter. I think that sums up the general feeling of those hon. Members opposite who will vote for the Motion tonight.
As I have said, the Ministerial speeches were very odd. The Minister of Housing and Local Government opened the debate yesterday with one of the most unconvincing expositions of Government policy that the House has heard for a long time. This is not only my view. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that it is the almost unanimous view in serious newspapers this morning. The outstanding point was that the right hon. Gentleman left almost every difficulty for somebody else to deal with, and whenever there was an interjection he said that he was about to come to that point but then passed on.
Above all, the right hon. Gentleman left all references to education to the Minister of Education, and that is even odder, because the Minister of Education obviously adopted the brief from which he argued in Cabinet against the


Royal Commission's proposals and he gave us that brief today although he was speaking for the White Paper. The right hon. Gentleman opposed everything that the Commission said, very convincingly and effectively, but nowhere did he say a single word in favour of the White Paper. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, the only conclusion is that the Minister thought as little of the educational consequences of the White Paper as do the rest of the House.
I ask the House to compare these speeches with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). My hon. Friend opened the debate from this side of the House with a powerful and closely reasoned speech. He raised a whole host of detailed arguments, as have others all through the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) and the hon. Members for Wimbledon, and for Croydon, Northwest (Mr. F. Harris). There has not been a single reference to the arguments which have been deployed in the debate, or to the detailed consequences which they have raised. We look forward to hearing the Leader of the House dealing with them.
I am still puzzled by the wording of the Motion. On the face of it, it is a "take note" Motion. It hurriedly replaced the Motion which the Government originally tabled. The speech of the Minister of Housing and Local Government would have been more appropriate if he had stuck to the wording of the original Motion, "to approve", because he invited the House to approve in every principle while leaving open only minor details. There is no connection between the speech he made and the Motion on the Order Paper. I still wonder why the Government bothered to change the Motion, unless they thought that they might get some un-enthusiastic Members, like the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick, to vote for these words but they could not possibly get them to vote for the original words.
The White Paper has aroused remarkably wide opposition. It has got the counties fairly solidly lined up

against it. It has most of the boroughs and it has the majority of the other local authorities fairly solidly lined up against it. It has the political parties, or the groups in power on the various authorities, against it and it has almost all the groups out of power against it, with the one solitary exception—I make this point before the Leader of the House makes it—of the London Municipal Association, which has lost every election over the last thirty years.
I wonder what significance there is in that. I do not draw any unworthy significance, but I make the point. That is the only exception. In addition to having the authorities and people in and out of power against it, the scheme has the professional bodies fairly solidly against it. It has the staff associations fairly solidly against it. Incidentally, little has been said on the Government side about the consequences of these arrangements to some devoted and highly skilled staff.
Let us compare this volume of opposition to a declaration which the former Minister of Local Government made in the House in March, 1955. I refer to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, who was then answering a number of questions and setting out what he thought were the requirements for an extensive reorganisation The right hon. Gentleman said:
I told them"—
that is, the representatives of the local authority associations—
that, in my opinion, it would not be fruitful to embark on any extensive reform, unless there existed some broad measure of agreement among the local authorities themselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 170.]
This is a complete reversal of Government policy. To say that there is no broad measure of agreement would be the understatement of the evening—indeed, of the year. There is broad measure of agreement, but it is agreement condemning the proposals. The Minister, who has inherited them, I imagine, from his predecessor, has chosen to go flatly against the declaration which one of his predecessors made on behalf of the Government from the Dispatch Box just a little while ago.
The question which we should ask and face is whether all this opposition


is just a matter of perverse vested interest. Are the Members of Parliament on the Government side or on this side who have been criticising so vigorously simply saying that it is a case of "my county right or wrong"? Are the councillors who have put up such constructive and impressive criticisms simply saying, "I must protect my own council"? Are the staff merely protecting existing jobs? Is that the view of the Government? It is fair to ask the Leader of the House whether that is the view he takes of his hon. Friends and the other people concerned. For myself, I submit that that is not so.
The scheme is open to the gravest objections. I am talking about the White Paper in so far as it departs from the recommendations of the Royal Commission, as well as about the Royal Commission. The scheme hardly meets one single basic requirement for good or effective local government. Perhaps I might quote a statement by the Leader of the House in case he is not wholly disposed to accept statements from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
Not so long ago, the Leader of the House made a broadcast on the subject of local government and he said:
I always remember what Lord Woolton said of local government: 'It must be local, and it must be government." We are trying to make it both.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Brown: I recognise the loyalty with which hon. Members opposite cheer the declaration of the Leader of the House. It must be refreshing music in his ears after what he used to get. But being loyal to the right hon. Gentleman's declaration is one thing. Showing that it applies to the present scheme is quite different.
I will examine the scheme against the right hon. Gentleman's declaration. First, however, let me address myself to the non-London Members of Parliament. This is not just a London matter. It is not just a Home Counties matter. If right hon. and hon. Members opposite help to pass this scheme into effectiveness, they will inevitably set the pattern elsewhere.
What is happening here will happen in other large conurbations; indeed, it

is beginning to happen. There is a marked difference between the recommendations of the local government commission concerning Tyneside and any of its previous recommendations. It is obvious that the impact of the Royal Commission, and the Government's approach to it, is beginning to make itself felt on Tyneside, and it will be felt more and more in the future. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must realise this fact.
Taking the definition of the Leader of the House as to what is required for good local government, we submit that there are fatal objections to the scheme. I start by examining the proposed Council for Greater London. The Leader of the House's first requirement of good government was that it should be local. We have heard many criticisms of the London County Council—we have heard criticisms of other county councils, but the London County Council has been especially criticised—on the ground that it is not local. It has been said that it is too big, covers too large an area, and is too impersonal.
Whatever might be said about the L.C.C.—and it is not my business to judge that at the moment—pales into absolute insignificance when considered against the proposed Council for Greater London. The very size of it makes any use of the word "local" nonsense. It will cover 850 square miles and deal with 8 million people, from Barnet in the north to Epsom in the south, and from Uxbridge in the west to Chigwell in the east. What could possibly be local about that?
I go even further than that. What connections are there between the places on the boundaries, or even inside the boundaries, of that area? What community of interests will there be? This authority will mean absolutely nothing to the ordinary man in the street, over the whole area. It will seem entirely divorced from his interests and purposes. Yesterday, the Minister of Housing and Local Government kept saying—he must have said it half a dozen times—"We are all Londoners in this area. Everybody in this area lives in the capital city. All its problems are their problems." I regard that as bunkum. It is not so. For the most part, the person who lives in Barnet, Croydon, or Epsom does not


regard himself as living in London, or in the capital city. He has an entity of his own, and a community of his own. I lived in Barnet for some time, and I know that it is nonsense to advance that argument.
We must face the fact that this is the first attempt—and the Government can boast of it, or defend it, if they wish—to set up regional government in this country. This is regional government and not local government. I subscribe entirely to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), and repeated by other hon. Members; organising elections in this area will be an absolute nightmare. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) spoke about the percentages of people who had voted in recent local elections. He was promptly torpedoed by an unkind shot from the benches behind him, which scored a bullseye. Nevertheless, he made his point that the percentage of people voting in recent local elections was not very high. In those circumstances, how many people do we think will vote in an election for a body administering an area as large as that which is proposed? It cannot be called "local" by any stretch of the imagination.
Secondly, it is very unlikely to be democratic. I am inserting this requirement myself. The Leader of the House did not include that in his definition of good local government. It will be extremely difficult to get people to serve on this body. It is already difficult to get ordinary people to serve on county councils. The considerations of time, and the distances which have to be travelled, are already great, and they will be far greater with a body of the kind proposed. There will be great difficulty in getting people of any kind of calibre and skill—any wide sweep of people which can be said truly to represent the area—to serve on this body.
I do not know whether it is proposed to pay them. That is a matter that will have to be looked into if the Government want this to be a democratic body. One of the real dangers, which, I think, was brought out just now by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brentford and Chiswick, is that it will tend to

become a body run by officials, in the very nature of the thing.
Then look at what work the councillors are supposed to do. Each councillor, each man or women—even if we get the councillors—is to be a voluntary, unpaid representative on this vast body, which is to be quite enormous in its scope and powers, and is to represent a constituency as big as any constituency which we in this House now represent, and is to do it as part of his or her spare-time job. It is nonsense. It just will not happen. The body will tend, I think, to become a very bureaucratic and a very powerful, non-democratic body.
These criticisms, mark you, will also apply to the proposed new boroughs. If we start setting up the boroughs, the larger Greater London boroughs, of the size proposed in the Government scheme, we shall run headlong into the very considerable trouble of remoteness. The town hall, the centre of operations, will be a very long way away from a great many of the people. At present, the town hall in many a borough is a long way from many of the people who live in the borough. That problem will become much worse in each of the boroughs which the Government are proposing to set up. Then the size of the wards which the councillors of the new boroughs will represent will become extremely large, the demands on members' time will become much greater; and this problem, already difficult, will be made much worse.
There is no reason for the Government to have done this. There are some very distinguished people who have spoken about all this. We have the Leader of the House before us. I noticed that a short while ago the Chairman of the Enfield Conservative Association, Sir Graham Rowlandson, who must be known to the Leader of the House, gave evidence at a public inquiry on electoral divisions in the right hon. Gentleman's own division. Sir Graham said, only a comparatively short while ago:
I know from my experience that the area is so large that it is difficult to canvass or represent satisfactorily and it seems to me wrong to increase it still further.
In the light of that evidence from the right hon. Gentleman's own party chairman the Government propose to put


Enfield in with five other boroughs to create a new Greater London borough. What are we supposed to deduce when Ministers' closest political friends and advisers say one thing and then the Government come along and do precisely the opposite, and in face of the problems which they know well will arise?
The last leg of the Minister's definition was that it should be government. My submission is that this will not, in fact, be government. Apparently, the criterion originally for setting up this body over this vast area was the requirement of planning, planning as we understand it, town and country planning and planning in relation to traffic problems, communications, and so on. If that is the criterion, then it requires a much greater area even than this area.
Everyone—everyone, that is, except the Government—from Abercrombie down to today's edition of The Times—and here let me say that I was impressed by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said about earlier Commissions—has recognised that if this is what we want, and, indeed, we should, then we must do it over a very much wider area; but if we are to do that over such a region, then we do not want a bodged, would-be electoral body of this kind: what we then want is a different body with quite different powers for quite different purposes.
Here, let me say that I thought the attempt of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to knock down the alternative plan put up by Surrey and others for that kind of planning body with experience over that region was, if I may say so, a very great disservice to those who are thinking hard about these problems. Just to say, "Will it be executive?" as though the answer was a straight "Yes" or "No" was not, if I may say so, up to the measure of the problem. The point is that the alternative scheme makes it very plain indeed that it would have to be accepted by the counties concerned.
I do not think it unfair to say that the Royal Commission clearly put education into the job of this body in order to give the larger body some powers and some purposes which would justify making it elective, that then the Government came along—and that the Minister

of Education, no doubt, fought very powerfully, with the brief which he showed us today, and, as a result, he got education taken out, and, in our view, quite properly got it taken out. But what the Government then failed to see is that once they do that what they have left is the wrong body, for the wrong purpose and for the wrong area, and it is that which causes the Greater London Council to fall down as a possible body for government.
Let us test it against the allocation of powers to the new boroughs. I heard the Minister say when I began this passage that the new boroughs were the answer, and I take it that he means the new powers to be granted to them. Let us look at them. It is not only a question of the allocation of powers to the Greater London Council, but it is also the revival of the School Board for London, which died in 1904. I wonder just how much more reactionary in 1962 one can get than that—going back to 1904.
The allocation of powers to the new boroughs is itself wrong, and so demonstrably wrong. I will not examine it all again in detail now, but I commend to the House and to those who did not hear it the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham yesterday, especially on personal services, on the children's services and on mental health, for example. I thought that he demonstrated quite clearly that, if given to these boroughs, these powers will not be the sort of powers that can be effectively or humanely operated. In the real interests of the people concerned, in that kind of area, these are again powers that require operation over a greater area.
There have been many arguments in which I have been involved with friends of mine prominent not only in local government in London, about the housing powers which the boroughs should have, and those which the L.C.C. should have. It has been demonstrated in this debate again quite clearly that if we want to do the real job of housing people, and we limit the boroughs in the way that we are to do here, then there will be a great many people who are at present looked after who will not be looked after in future. I thought that the hon. Member for Hendon, South brought that out, although it was not the


point that he was trying to bring out. What is interesting is that The Times leader today wholly supports the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham made about these personal services. What has been outstanding is how few hon. Members opposite have referred to the personal services at all during the whole course of the debate.
The one thing I want to look at now is education, on which, more than on anything else, though not to the exclusion of all else, the Government's attempts to justify their White Paper have failed. I listened very carefully to the Minister of Education today, and I must say that I was puzzled. He quoted a former colleague of ours, the very dear friend of many of us, Sir Frederick Messer, and the point he quoted was very interesting. He said that Fred Messer laid it down that in this field we must not let efficiency have it all its own way. I was not clear whether what he was trying to say was that the Government are not doing that, but were putting up something inefficient; otherwise, I do not see what the point of the remark was. Obviously, we want an efficient scheme allied with other things.
The right hon. Gentleman has set out here two extremes which we have to take into account. On the one hand, there is humanity, and, on the other, efficiency. Which does he claim is not present? The Ministry of Education gave evidence to the Royal Commission and specifically said that the L.C.C., as an education authority, was both humanitarian and efficient, and the Minister did not go back on that today. What, then, is the case, on the basis of his own argument, for the scheme which he was presumably trying to defend?
The right hon. Gentleman went on to build up a strong case for larger education authorities. He said that there will be a demand for a wider choice of schools calling for larger rather than smaller local education authorities, which is the opposite to what the Government propose in the White Paper. In the central area, the London County Council area which is to be left out, the size of the authority will be reduced instead of the other way round. When he made his point about public opinion, he might have noted that the London

group of the parent-teacher association was pressing—I think wrongly—for a single L.E.A. over a very much wider area.
There are some things about which we still want to hear from the Leader of the House, because we have not heard about them from the Ministers. The Government propose a central education area with a population of about 2 million. The present L.C.C. area figure is 3¼ million. We were told nothing by the Minister of Education about which parts of that area are to be hacked off and we ought to know this if we are being asked to take note of the proposals; and certainly if we are being asked to accept them, which was the tenor of the Minister's speech. Nor were we told much about the way in which this authority will be set up. How will it be elected or formed? That is a very important thing to know.
In addition to the 2 million population referred to, there remains about 6½ million people in that part of greater London outside the proposed central area. For them, education is to be administered by 25 different boroughs, each of which will be an independent authority. How does the Leader of the House relate that to what we were told today by the Minister about a growing call for a wider choice of schools and courses and a growing demand for larger L.E.A.s?
There are other things to bear in mind. In my view, not nearly enough has been said about the consequent loss of career opportunities and opportunities for promotion among members of the staffs. We ought to hear more about how the Government feel that will work out. We have had no convincing answer to the charge made by hon. Members on both sides of the House that, as a consequence of this scheme, there will be less voluntary choice and less opportunity for children. While this is generally true, it is true especially of secondary school education and of the voluntary and denominational schools in Kent and about the special schools, and so on. The Government have not answered that charge and the Leader of the House ought to reply to it tonight.
There has been no answer to the charge, again made by hon. Members on both sides, that this will result in a


great waste of premises because there will be schools in areas where children will not be educated and there will be the wrong type of schools in other areas. Especially if we compare the reduced central area with the outside area there will be a great waste of facilities of every kind. We have heard about the acres of sports grounds right outside the area of the L.E.A.s. concerned. There will be great additional competition for supplies as the result of breaking up the central purchasing department, unless the Government have some other way to overcome that problem.
There will be a scarcity of senior officers and skilled services. In the whole of this two-day debate we have heard nothing about how the Government visualise higher education fitting into this. It is all very well to say that the Government are waiting for the Report of the Robbins Committee, but that is not enough, if we are to pronounce on whether a scheme of this kind seems generally acceptable.
In all these matters the L.C.C. service works intolerably well. Yesterday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) interjected to say that it works, the Minister replied that he would come to that point later, but he never did. Nobody has shown that the service has not worked fairly well as it is and it is necessary for someone to say that, if the Government are proposing to show that something else will work better. From the point of view of the arts, entertainment or sports facilities this has been shown to be an area which has worked very well.
One other question has to be answered. We have heard nothing of the cost. The Report says nothing about the cost and neither have the Ministers. It is all very well for a Minister to say, "I cannot answer. It is a very big question." That may be the way in which the Government run their affairs, but it is not the way in which local government is conducted. Who is to pay? What is the compensation to be for Kent and Essex and other outside counties? Are they to have any? Who will pay? Is the silence of the Government on this an indication that may be that there is not to be an increase in costs because communal services are to be cut down to keep within the present

figure? Are we going back to the "safety net" philosophy?
This morning, in almost my favourite newspaper, but not quite sometimes, the Leader of the House made a great defence of his political philosophy. He stated his political philosophy to be "equal opportunites to be unequal". May I interpret that in relation to this debate, and say what it seems to mean in practice is that one puts a premium on private provision and a penalty on communal services, which is what I suggest this proposal will do.
One is left at the end of the debate to ask why the Government are determined to make it clear that they will not budge on any of the principles? Why did the Minister of Housing and Local Government go out of his way yesterday to answer that there was no room there, whatever there may be on details? Why do the Government not genuinely consult the House and other opinion outside first? What would they have lost if they had taken note of what folk had to say?
In view of all the opposition, they cannot surely believe that the case is as proven as all that. Professional people are against them. Representative bodies are against them. Almost all parties are against them. Is the reason for this political? Has their thirty years' failure to win London, the capital city, really hurt? Some prominent people have suggested that this might be the case.
I read the other day what was said by the chairman of the general purposes committee and the local government subcommittee of a borough that will be affected. He said:
… I wonder whether the whole underlying fact is not political, an attempt to correct by law something they have not been able to achieve by the ballot box.
I would not have quoted him if he had not been the Chairman of the General Purposes Committee of the Bromley Borough Council, and had he not started by saying:
Frankly, and I speak as a Conservative, …
If the suspicion is unworthy, it seems to exist in remarkable circles very near to the Prime Minister. In the absence of any other reason, I am bound to ask the Leader of the House whether he believes that Alderman Smith, the Prime Minister's own Chairman of the General


Purposes Committee, is very near the truth? We have already quoted the chairman of the authority in which the Leader of the House lives.
It is not only Alderman Smith, of Bromley, who has spoken about this. Others have done so. The other day I read an interesting statement by a prominent man. He said:
I would say there are two fundamental questions to be asked. First, do we really think that London is well governed at the moment?
He answered that it is not.
And, secondly, are we going to allow it to be continually dominated by Socialists?
That was said by the recently departed Solicitor-General, Sir Jocelyn Simon He said it when he was a member of the present Administration, and I ask the Leader of the House to deal with the question of how much this decision is political as against a real care for local government.
If this is based on political considerations, the right hon. Gentleman ought not to be too sure of the position. He ought not to be too sure that Labour will not win the new authority. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have voiced the fear that once this great regional body is set up the chances are that it will grow in power, and all hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to bear this in mind. Is the Leader of the House sure that what will be left of the Kent County Council will not be a Labour authority? If he is, he ought to look at what will be left of Kent, and where the votes will lie. The Government's proposals may turn out to be in vain, and at what a cost—the wanton destruction of effective services and effective local government.
To us, this scheme is an abortion, ill-conceived, and malformed. We ask the House to accept our Amendment. We ask the Government, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Southall, even at this late hour to think again and not destroy the present system. We ask the Government not to push through such a badly thought out scheme.
There are alternatives. Six or seven years ago there was an agreement which could have been in operation all this time for the delegation of the personal services from the London County Council to the metropolitan boroughs. That scheme

would now have been operating, but for the Government. It could have been in operation all these years. Then there is the wider plan for town and country planning, traffic planning and the like, with which the hon. Member for Wimbledon has been so closely associated. I submit that there is no good case for this scheme. There is every case for us thinking again and trying to find a better way of doing the job.

9.30 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Apart from five minutes of robust polemics at the end of the speech of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown)—

Mr. E. G. Willis: Very true, as well.

Mr. Macleod: I will answer some of the points in due course. We have spent two days in a really fascinating debate. Everybody who has heard most of the debate will agree with that. We have been discussing the reform of local government in this area, which as it is at present planned, will be the largest city authority in the world. Its population of about 8·4 million will be slightly larger than Tokio's 8·2 million and considerably larger than New York, Shanghai and the other great communities of the world. It is of the first importance that everybody concerned with these matters—I myself represent a constituency which is very closely concerned—should express their own points of view in the debate.
Because I know that, although these questions have played only a minor part in the debate, they weigh very heavily in people's concern about these problems, I should like first to make it clear, as the Royal Commission and the White Paper make it clear, that we are discussing a reform of local government. Paragraph 18 of the White Paper says:
In general they"—
that is the Government—
wish to emphasise that they propose to make only changes which are needed to achieve their main purpose and matters consequential to it. These proposals should not affect any existing cultural, social, sporting or other associations or loyalties which may be based on the traditional counties.
I have received a considerable number of letters saying that these proposals


will, for example, greatly change the County Cricket Championship. There has been a County of London by Statute for seventy years. Clearly it is a county for legal purposes, but it is made absolutely clear in the laws of cricket that it is not a county for the purposes of cricket. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] It should be made quite clear that we are considering here local government alone.
One point I wish to make is the effect of these changes on the Parliamentary constituencies, which concern a number of Members of the House. The local government proposals set out in the White Paper are quite separate from any proposals to change Parliamentary constituencies. These are distinct questions, although it is laid down in the rules for the Parliamentary Boundary Commission that it shall have regard to local government boundaries so far as is practicable. It may well be that any new local government boundaries in Greater London will in due course be followed by some adjustment of Parliamentary constituencies, but it is quite clear that this could not happen before the next General Election. The Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England has to carry out—we have laid this duty upon it—a review between the autumn of 1964 and the autumn of 1969. I imagine that it will look at these constituencies as part of that comprehensive review. The House will realise that the statutory procedure under which the Commission works is lengthy and provides opportunities for representations and also for local inquiries.
I now come directly to the Amendment to the Government's Motion and I wish to take up some of the points made in what I agree was an impressive speech by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) who opened for the Opposition yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper said that none of my hon. Friends had spoken about the personal services, in particular child care. As this is, perhaps, the most personal service of all, I will take some issue with what the hon. Member for Fulham said yesterday because we can see, on a point such as this, the real difference between the two sides of the House.
The Government's proposals regarding the child-care services would lay the present statutory duty of counties and county boroughs to provide child-care services on the proposed thirty-three London boroughs. These have populations of an average of 255,000, while the population average of the Royal Commission was not the 100,000 we hear so much about but, in fact, 165,000. The question is, can boroughs, with average populations of 255,000, carry out these functions or are the Opposition right in putting to us in strong terms in their Amendment that the proposals would
… wreck the humane and efficient performance of several local government functions, notably education, housing and the children's service"—
on which I propose to concentrate for a moment—
in Central London…
No hon. Member believes that the authorities that will take over will care less about the children than those authorities from which they will take over. The charge, therefore, must be that these authorities are too small or not efficiently enough organised—and few of us would wish to argue that—to take over these duties.
In the debate yesterday the hon. Member for Fulham was immediately followed by a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) who represents a county borough which has these powers and which has a population of 250,000. My hon. Friend said with great pride—and no doubt he was right to do so—how efficiently these different services were run in his county borough.
If one takes this average of 255,000 and remembers two things—firstly, that the average of the Royal Commission's suggestion for the boroughs was 165,000 and, secondly, that the average for the whole of the eight-three county boroughs in England and Wales is 165,000—identical with the Royal Commission's proposals and far below the ones that the Government suggest—it seems impossible to argue, and in a way offensive to boroughs to argue, that they will not be able to carry out these functions.
When he was challenged on this subject by the Minister—who asked whether such problems would not arise and give anxiety about children in Coventry or


Leicester or, perhaps, in Croydon or East Ham—the hon. Member for Fulham replied that the answer was in paragraph 19 of the White Paper. With respect, that is not so. The purpose of paragraph 19—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises—is to argue upwards from the 100,000 of the 1958 Local Government Act and the range of the Royal Commission boroughs, to the figure, which I have shown to be an average of 255,000 and a minimum of about 200,000 which is discussed in the following paragraph, in paragraph 20.
But there is another reason. Apart from the fact that I believe it to be fundamentally wrong and unfair, to use that word, to people who will obviously care very deeply about these problems, the hon. Member's case ignores the whole trend of this kind of work since 1948 in the development of the field work of local authority children's departments. This is aiming increasingly—and rightly so—at keeping children with their families rather than receiving them into care. And that has had its effect upon the figures.
The hon. Member for Fulham then relied finally on the Curtis Committee but, following the Curtis Committee—and that was a considerable time ago—county councils and county boroughs were given power to set up joint committees or joint children's officers. While the Curtis Committee said that it had no desire to fix a hard and fast limit to the maximum number of children who should be in child care in one area—one cannot do that with these immensely difficult and human problems—it said that it ought to be about 500. But, partly because of the developments which I have outlined, most child-care authorities today have fewer than 500 children in their care, indeed a majority have fewer than 300. My latest figures for the three county boroughs in the Greater London area are Croydon, 294; East Ham, 177; West Ham, 208. I am certain that, on reflection, the hon. Member will not wish to cast a reflection on the county boroughs which have performed these activities with very great skill—although that is what the Amendment does—and the same argument could be used in other matters.

Mr. M. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman misses the point. As I

pointed out and as is pointed out in paragraph 19, if there is, as there may be, a city in the provinces with a population of ¼ million and no more, that is that; but in London, because people are living at a high density of population, it is possible to decide whether to stop at ¼ million or to go up to a figure larger than that. In the light of the decision of the Curtis Committee, why stop at the smaller figure when one can go so easily to the larger, as one cannot in the provinces?

Mr. Macleod: I assure the hon. Member that I took his point and I was very interested in arguing it back exactly with him. Paragraph 19 does not argue on that basis. It argues its way up towards paragraph 20 which is the higher figure. The hon. Member's case—and this goes back over and over again to the points which have been put by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—is to argue that the L.C.C. area is better. At least they do not get the aid of the Curtis Committee in this case, because the Curtis Committee figures are at least a great deal nearer to the sort of figures which Croydon has and the sort of figures which are indicated in the White Paper than they are to those related to the 3¼ million of the London Council Council
Many speeches were made from the point of view of those in Surrey and dealing with the terms of reference for the consultations which my right hon. Friend has suggested. There are one or two matters in this connection which are of very great importance. Some people have suggested that the fact that the terms of reference include the words
… whether any existing county district or part of a district should be added to or left out …
possibly concealed some intention by the Government to widen the area of the Greater London Council.
I give a categorical undertaking on this. Naturally, the terms of reference have to be wide. We all know that some areas—this will be argued in parts of my own constituency—will ask to be excluded. It is right that one should at least consider the possibility that some areas may wish, for quite different reasons, to be included. But I say quite firmly, as a Government undertaking, that no district or part of a district will


be added to the present proposed area of the Greater London Council until it is clear that it is the wish of its inhabitants that it should be added. I hope that there will be no further anxiety about those words.
The other point on the terms of reference which has aroused a great deal of comment is the proposal that town clerks from outside should hold the conferences on behalf of the Minister. Inevitably, this is a difficult matter from the Minister's point of view. He has put forward—this is what we are discussing—a White Paper and a map. Officials of central Government have already produced their suggestions. The House has been rightly jealous—we remember the long debates on Franks—that the Minister may appear to be both judge and jury in his own cause. The Minister believes that it is right that these town clerks, who will, of course, be advising him, should take on the duty. It has been argued, however, that on the question of what area should be treated as part of Greater London and what area round the edges should be excluded, town clerks may not be the most appropriate people to advise because they may well be too prone to think that borough government is the right and only answer.
I take the point which has been made in debate and I tell the House now that for these questions, that is, the examination of the fringe areas, the procedure will be altered. The Minister will himself directly, as a preliminary exercise, take any representations about areas to be excluded and he will reach and announce a conclusion on these problems, that is to say, the delineation of the outer boundary, before considering the right borough groupings for the outer areas.

Sir William Robson-Brown: Are we to understand from what my right hon. Friend has said—I hope I understood correctly—that the final arbitration and decision will be based upon the general will of the people of the area?

Mr. Macleod: I made it quite clear that as far as the areas outside the proposed Greater London Council are concerned—the terms of the White Paper and the map—the answer is "Yes"; that is absolutely true. As far as the others

are concerned, the Minister will himself undertake the inquiries where an area puts forward a case to be excluded and he will take this responsibility personally upon himself.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) argued that the real decision about what is inside London and what is outside is determined by where lies the green belt, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) said that the area of Surrey at present proposed to be included in the scheme is far too big. My reply is this. The intention and, indeed, the sense is to include in London only the area enclosed by the green belt. There is, of course, the difficulty, which my hon. Friend recognised—I have it in my own constituency in relation to these problems—that many of the boroughs and districts round the edge include, in varying proportions, parts of the continuous built-up area and parts of the green belt. This is true of my constituency, as I say, and it may be that Potters Bar was excluded from the Greater London plan because it lies on the other side of the green belt.
We have no desire to force into the London system of government areas which are not truly part of London as it now is. We will look with as sympathetic an eye as possible on proposals for adjusting the boundary. The object is to include within the London system the whole of the continuous line, but no more than that.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Does my right hon. Friend, then, say that the County Borough of Croydon can keep out of this proposal?

Mr. Macleod: No, indeed. But I have said that it can, and no doubt will, make its case either for final exclusion or for regrouping, and that the Minister himself will consider these points.
The right hon. Member for Belper and the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe) said—and there is a good deal of truth in it—that the great majority of speeches have been, in part at least, critical of the Government's proposals. Of course, this is true, because the great majority of those who have spoken are themselves affected by these proposals and are unlikely to agree with all the details.
I do not believe that any hon. Member is more affected by these proposals than I am myself. The borough of which I represent part is to be divided. Potters Bar is to be taken out of the area and presumably, in time, out of Middlesex. Cheshunt, which is a neighbouring district in a neighbouring constituency, is to be brought in and may in due course find Parliamentary links with one or other of the two Enfield constituencies.
I should make it clear that there is great dispute in Enfield about these matters, but that the people there are not arguing about the two key features of the scheme itself—to treat the Greater London area as one and to give a key place to the boroughs within it. I am quite certain, from my knowledge of the area, that Cheshunt will argue that it should be left out of the scheme, and my right hon. Friend has said that he will consider that himself.
The Borough of Enfield is to be divided and many, although not all, its people will wish to argue that it should not be divided and, perhaps, that a different grouping should be adopted. I serve notice on my right hon. Friend that, as Member for Enfield, West—which is an area very similar to Epsom, with its shoulders in the green belt and its feet in Greater London—I intend to put forward representations to him.

Mr. Charles Doughty: What my right hon. Friend has just said will give tremendous satisfaction to tens of thousands of people who live in such areas. He has referred to areas which have shoulders in the green belt and feet in Greater London. Will he give an assurance that the line will not cut through any area, and that an urban district council area will not be divided in the middle?

Mr. Macleod: It has been one of the main principles that, as far as possible, local authority areas should not be divided, although, as the House knows from what I have said myself, I have been unlucky in this respect. I must make it clear that the Government are not wedded to the present proposed size of the individual boroughs, nor to their groupings. It follows that the advice which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey gave, to the

effect that we would be wise to reject the Amendment and concentrate on arguing the individual cases, is the right approach.
This debate is on a Motion "to take note". The right hon. Member for Belper, at the end of his speech, launched into a number of comments about the political motives that might lie behind it. If this argument applies to London it must equally apply to Middlesex which is a Conservative-controlled council and to other Conservative-controlled councils as well. [An HON. MEMBER: "London?"] The hon. Member ought not to be too sure. We won four seats in London at the last General Election. The seats in London are now eighteen to twenty-four.

Mr. M. Stewart: Not on the L.C.C.

Mr. Macleod: Surely it must be clear that, if the object were in any way political, we could not conceivably have brought forward the proposal for the central education authority which we have outlined. There are a considerable number of matters of detail which are open for consideration, but it would be quite wrong to end without emphasising what my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of the debate. We are convinced of the need for radical overhaul. We are convinced that the two main pillars of the new structure should be, first, a directly elected council with authority to act effectively on those problems which require direction over the whole of Greater London, and, secondly, boroughs big enough and strong enough to undertake all the remaining local government functions.
The whole House knows that it is something like seventy years since this particular pattern was established. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), who has been closer to this problem perhaps than anyone else, told us in his speech all the history which led up to the Royal Commission and so to the White Paper. From the beginning, when it was concerned first with matters of sanitation and public health, local government has grown until now it involves the whole of the life of the people. In 1958 we as a Government set our hands to the task of modernising the structure of local government. I think it fitting that the first major proposals for re-organisation to


come before Parliament should be those for the capital city. They are based on a unanimous Report of the Royal Commission following a very detailed consideration of the whole subject matter.
I entirely agree with the point made by the right hon. Member for Belper and others that it is not London alone, nor Greater London, nor indeed the South East of England, which is involved. It is local government itself which is on trial and London is the test case. If we draw back now, if we ignore the clear message of the Commission's Report, if we have to say that local government simply cannot face the need to adapt itself to the challenges and difficulties of the modern age but must remain rooted in the structure and habits of the last century—

Mr. G. Brown: We have not said that.

Mr. Macleod: —local government will clearly just decline. The simple argument before the House is this—because the argument came back over and over again with increasing nostalgia towards preserving the status quo—are we prepared, after all these inquiries and all these years, to give to the greatest city in the world the sort of local government structure that it deserves? This is what we believe we should do, and that is the object of the White Paper.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 198.

Division No. 93.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Coulson, Michael
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Aitken, W. T.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Allason, James
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hastings, Stephen


Arbuthnot, John
Critchley, Julian
Hay, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Crowder, F. P.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Barber, Anthony
Cunningham, Knox
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward


Barlow, Sir John
Curran, Charles
Hendry, Forbes


Barter, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.


Batsford, Brian
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hiley, Joseph


Barter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bell, Ronald
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Deedes, W. F.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
de Ferranti, Basil
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hobson, Sir John


Bidgood, John C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hocking, Philip N.


Biffen, John
Doughty, Charles
Holland, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
du Cann, Edward
Hollingworth, John


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Duncan, Sir James
Holt, Arthur


Bishop, F. P.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John


Bossom, Clive
Eden, John
Hopkins, Alan


Bourne-Arton, A.
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcatle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hornby, R. P.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Emery, Peter
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Box, Donald
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hughes-Young, Michael


Braine, Bernard
Farr, John
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Brewis, John
Finlay, Graeme
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bromley Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Fisher, Nigel
Iremonger, T. L.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jackson, John


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
James, David


Bryan, Paul
Gammans, Lady
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bullard, Denys
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Jennings, J. C.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Gibson-Watt, David
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Burden, F. A.
Gilmour, Sir John
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Clover, Sir Douglas
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Godber, J. B.
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Goodhart, Philip
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Cary, Sir Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Kershaw, Anthony


Chataway, Christopher
Gough, Frederick
Kimball, Marcus


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Gower, Raymond
Kirk, Peter


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Lagden, Godfrey


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth W.)
Green, Alan
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Cleaver, Leonard
Gresham Cooke, R.
Leather, E. H. C


Cole, Norman
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Leavey, J. A.


Collard, Richard
Gurden, Harold
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Cooke, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cooper, A. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lilley, F. J. P.


Cordeaux, Lt-Col. J. K.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Corfield, F. V.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Costain, A. P.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Litchfield, Capt. John




Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Teeling, Sir William


Longbottom, Charles
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Temple, John M.


Longden, Gilbert
Pitman, Sir James
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Loveys, Walter H.
Pitt, Miss Edith
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Pott, Percivall
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


McAdden, Stephen
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


MacArthur, Ian
Prior, J. M. L.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


McLaren, Martin
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Thorpe, Jeremy


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs.)
Pym, Francis
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Ramsden, James
Turner, Colin


McMaster, Stanley R.
Rawlinson, Peter
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Rees, Hugh
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maddan, Martin
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vane, W. M. G.


Maginnis, John E,
Renton, David
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir john


Maitland, Sir John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Vickers, Miss Joan


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ridsdale, Julian
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Rippon, Geoffrey
Wade, Donald


Marshall, Douglas
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'le'bone)


Marten, Neil
Robson Brown, Sir William
Walder, David


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Walker, Peter


Mawby, Ray
Roots, William
Wall, Patrick


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Ward, Dame Irene


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Russell, Ronald
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Mills, Stratton
Scott-Hopkins, James
Webster, David


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sharples, Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Morgan, William
Shepherd, William
Whitelaw, William


Morrison, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Mott-Radclyfle, Sir Charles
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Nabarro, Gerald
Smithers, Peter
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wise, A. R.


Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Oakshott, Sir Hendrle
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Orr-Ewing C. Ian
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Stodart, J. A.
Woodnutt, Mark


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stoddart-Scott, Col Sir Malcolm
Woollam, John


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Storey, Sir Samuel
Worsley, Marcus


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Studholme, Sir Henry
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Partridge, E.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)



Pearson, Frank (Ciltheroe)
Talbot, John E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Peel, John
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Percival, Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. Chichester-Clark.


Peyton, John
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)





NOES


Ainsley, William
Dodds, Norman
Hilton, A. V.


Albu, Austen
Donnelly, Desmond
Holman, Percy


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Driberg, Tom
Houghton, Douglas


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Awbery, Stan
Edelman, Maurice
Hoy, James H.


Beaney, Alan
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bence, Cyril
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Evans, Albert
Hunter, A. E.


Benson, Sir George
Fernyhough, E.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Black, Sir Cyril
Finch, Harold
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Blackburn, F.
Fletcher, Eric
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Blyton, William
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Bowles, Frank
Forman, J. C.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Boyden, James
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jeger, George


Braddock, Mrs. E. M,
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Ginsburg, David
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Gourlay, Harry
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Grey, Charles
Jones, T, W. (Merioneth)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Kelley, Richard


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Kenyon, Clifford


Cliffe, Michael
Gunter, Ray
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Crosland, Anthony
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
King, Dr. Horace


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Lawson, George


Darling, George
Hannan, William
Ledger, Ron


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Deer, George
Hayman, F. H.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Delargy, Hugh
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Dempsey, James
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Loughlin, Charles


Diamond John
Hewitson, Capt. M.
MacColl, James







Mclnnes, James
Peart, Frederick
Stones, William


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Pentland, Norman
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)


McLeavy, Frank
Popplewell, Ernest
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Mahon, Simon
Prentice. R. E.
Swain, Thomas


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Swingler, Stephen


Manuel, A. C.
Probert, Arthur
Symonds, J. B.


Mapp, Charles
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Marsh, Richard
Randall, Harry
Thornton, Ernest


Mason, Roy
Rankin, John
Timmons, John


Mayhew, Christopher
Redhead, E. C.
Tomney, Frank


Mellish, R. J.
Reid, William
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Mendelson, J. J.
Reynolds, G. W.
Wainwright, Edwin


Millan, Bruce
Rhodes, H.
Warbey, William


Milne, Edward
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkins, Tudor


Mitchison, G. R.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Weitzman, David


Monslow, Walter
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Moody, A. S.
Robinson, Kenneth (St, Pancras, H.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Morris, John
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Whitlock, William


Mort, D. L.
Ross, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Moyle, Arthur
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Willey, Frederick


Mulley, Frederick
Short, Edward
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Oliver, G. H.
Skeffington, Arthur
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Oram, A. E.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Oswald, Thomas
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Owen, Will
Small, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Padley, W. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Snow, Julian
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Pargiter, G. A.
Sorensen, R. W.
Woof, Robert


Parker, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Parkin, B. T.
Steele, Thomas



Pavitt, Laurence
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Stonehouse, John
Mr. Charles A. Howell and




Mr. McCann.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for the reorganisation of local government in Greater London (Command Paper No. 1562).

Orders of the Day — DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (MALTA)

10.12 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Malta) Order, 1961, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 19th December.
This arrangement is the first Double Taxation Agreement between the United Kingdom and Malta. We had been negotiating with Malta for a number of years, but it is only a provision in last year's Finance Act that has made it possible for us to reach an agreement. I think I need draw the attention of the House to only two provisions in the agreement which are of particular significance. The first is a feature of the agreement to which the United Kingdom attaches particular importance; like all other comprehensive double taxation agreements, the agreement includes a provision under which profits derived by a resident of one territory from operating ships or aircraft are exempt from tax in the other territory.
The second point is that included in this agreement are provisions designed to prevent the frustration of certain tax holidays which Malta gives to encourage development there. There are a number of other detailed and complex arrangements in the agreement, but I thought it right to draw the attention of the House to these two in particular and I hope that the House will approve the Motion.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I hope that the Economic Secretary will give us rather more information than that before the night is out. This is the second double taxation agreement following on a Section in last year's Finance Act to which the Economic Secretary referred. The first one related to Pakistan. It went through on the nod, partly because there was another one relating to Portugal shortly afterwards, and partly because there was no doubt whatever that Pakistan was the kind of case contemplated by the Government when they introduced the

Section. Indeed, the Pakistan agreement was mentioned and discussed at a little length when we debated the Clause, as it then was.
In that discussion the then Solicitor-General pointed out, as a leading argument for the Clause, that:
The House will be able to control the negotiation of the agreements.
The Solicitor-General realised at the time, as, I am sure, did everyone else in the Government, that on the face of it they needed Parliamentary control and that agreements were not to be made lightly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that there had been discussion about the Pakistan agreement, which was then, I suppose, in course of negotiation or practically settled. He was asked what would be the cost of the Clause and he said that he could not give it. He also said, however:
I think that it will be apparent from the observations I made that I cannot answer that because it depends on each agreement which is negotiated and brought before the House of Commons; but as each agreement is negotiated and brought before the House it may be possible to give an estimate of the cost of it.
Not a word has been said by the Economic Secretary today either as to the cost or as to any reason why he could not give it, in spite of what was said by the Solicitor-General when the Clause was introduced into the 1961 Finance Bill, as it then was.
There are other points, too. The Solicitor-General referred to provisions exempting from taxation and insisted that with provisions of this kind, the Government must be sure that they were introduced only
into a proper agreement in which reasonable concessions are made from the other side.
I quote only one sentence, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman said it more than once in the course of the discussion. He went on to give one very broad reason for it when he said:
… all these reliefs"—
that is to say, a relief by which a certain person was exempted from paying taxes—
mean that there is some infringement of a principle which the House has shown itself to be jealous about, namely, that people in this


country should not, so far as we can see to it, enjoy income which has not borne tax anywhere.
As I understand it, the effect of the present agreement is precisely that. A person who is excused tax in Malta on the ground that the enterprise is required for the development of Malta will also not pay tax in this country. That is the point which the Solicitor-General made and it is, I understand, the effect of the order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say:
We are prepared to see a breach of that principle in particular cases, of which the development of under-developed countries is one, but it is not one to be used indiscriminately."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th June, 1961; Vol. 641, c. 1421, 1423, 1424.]
I do not accuse the Government of using the principle indiscriminately, because there was the Pakistan case, which was discussed at the time the Clause was introduced, and now follows the present case. One must, however, look at matters a little further than the Economic Secretary would, perhaps, like us to do.
I understand that Malta is an exceedingly prosperous country, no doubt as the result of considerable Government assistance from the present and previous British Governments. Indeed, when one turns to HANSARD for Friday of last week, one finds that in a Written Answer the Colonial Secretary stated that there was a development programme for the Maltese Isands and that
The cost of the development programme is estimated at over £35½ million, of which the United Kingdom Government has undertaken to provide £29¼ million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 191.]
If assistance is to be given to Malta, that is undoubtedly one way of providing it, and I should have thought that, on the face of it, it was a much better way than to give it in such a form that individual earners of income will escape taxation altogether. Moreover, when I turned to consider the cases which are likely to arise in Malta, and referred to the Development Plan for the Maltese Islands, 1959–64, I discovered that
the major single investment is £6 million, earmarked for the conversion operation of the naval dockyard to civil use.
That is a very good purpose. But then the official statement continues, saying:
This operation is a striking example of the 'new look' for Malta to which this whole development programme is geared.

Then comes the meat of the matter:
This is the object of the investment, and after protracted negotiations arrangements have been concluded with a private ship-repairing firm (C. H. Bailey Ltd.) to undertake this task.
It seems clear, therefore, that the major beneficiary from this double taxation agreement is likely to be C. H. Bailey Ltd., or, at least, that that firm will be one of the benficiaries. It will be in the position of carrying out this undertaking, and, if it yields profit, of finding that that profit will not be taxed either in Malta or in this country.
Unfortunately, we have had some experience of C. H. Bailey Ltd. since then. The report to which I have referred was printed in 1959, and in the Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts printed in November, 1960, and subsequently we discover that Messrs. C. H. Bailey borrowed from the Colonial Office £1,200,000 which it said it required for working capital. It then removed £650,000 of that amount from Malta and sent it
to Bermuda, where a new company called Bailey Trust (Bermuda) was set up to provide a pension and gratuity scheme for workers in the dockyard.
No doubt that was an excellent purpose, but it could not properly be described as working capital.
It also took £200,000, which was paid by the Malta firm—which is some subsidiary of it in Malta—
to its parent company in the United Kingdom for what were called promotion and formation expenses. The third item was a loan of £200,000 to the parent company for the provision of tugs for use in the dockyard"—
paid out of public funds—
The loan was to be free of interest and to be non-repayable in certain circumstances.
It is no wonder that after another passage dealing with the investigation of what happened, the Committee of Public Accounts reported that it was
concerned that of the loan of £1,200,000 for working capital over £1 million was applied by the company to purposes which would not have been agreed by the Colonial Office had they known of them at the time of issue, and that it was only a request for a further advance that gave rise to the Colonial Office enquiries.
The Public Accounts Committee made certain criticisms of the Colonial Office which are irrelevant for the purpose of this debate.
The point is that C. H. Bailey Ltd., which appears to be the firm most likely to profit by this double taxation agreement, is not entitled, on that record, to any special consideration by Her Majesty's Government or the Treasury. We say to ourselves, "If this is what these double taxation agreements are to be used for they require more justification than was given at the time when the relevant Clause was introduced into the 1961 Finance Bill."
I want to be quite clear about this. I am not saying for a moment that Malta does not need assistance. I have already quoted figures that show the considerable amount of assistance that has been given to Malta. A very large sum indeed has been given for by far the greater part of the development programme spreading over five years, a capital sum which begins to compare with concessions to Surtax payers and things of that sort, which begins to compare with that kind of unfortunate balance which from time to time appears between the debit and credit side of our accounts with foreign countries, and a sum so considerable that of course it ought to be applied with caution, and no doubt was and is.
But I am not complaining of it. What I am complaining about is that, when we get a double taxation agreement the effect of which is to supplement that concession by making concessions which will enure to the benefit of private taxpayers and, as the Solicitor-General said at the time, have the effect of relieving them altogether of tax, all we get from the Economic Secretary, with great and genuine respect to him, is about the shortest introduction of a double taxation Order I have ever heard. I hope we are going to hear from him today why it has been thought so necessary to introduce this Order, what effect it is going to have, and why it is better to do it this way, that is, to add to the encouragement given to Malta, the substantial encouragement which has been given to Malta by the money payments which I quoted just now.
I add one last point. We were told that there always had to be a quid pro quo. That was the substance of the matter. The quid pro quo in this case is said to be that people operating ships

and aircraft in Malta if they are United Kingdom residents will not have to pay taxes there. I wonder how much there is in that. There are a number of special arrangements about ships and aircraft with various countries. There have been such agreements from time to time for many years, but in addition to that I notice that the Maltese taxes in question are, so far as companies are concerned, only the Income Tax and that that Income Tax is at the rate of 5s. in the £.
It seems to me, therefore, that if an English resident, a company operating ships or aircraft in Malta, were to pay Maltese taxes, it would, under the next following Section of the Finance Act, be entitled under the provisions for unilateral relief, quite apart from this Agreement, to deduct the amount paid in Malta from the taxes it would have to pay in this country, and though the tax would be paid to a different person, it would be no worse off at all.
I rather fail, therefore, to see what is the advantage on our side of this concession. So far as our nationals are concerned, it does not appear that it will make any difference to them. So far as the Treasury is concerned, it appears to me that it is going to receive less taxes than it otherwise would have. But I do not care about that, and I may be wrong about the Treasury. But certainly if this is a case of giving encouragement to enterprise which derives some advantage in that way, one has to take into account the unilateral relief given to cover cases of this sort.
For all these reasons, I feel that this Order certainly needs a great deal more explanation than we have had, and that that explanation ought to include, not only the effect of this Order, but the intentions of the Government with regard to future agreements of this kind, because it seems to me that at present they have gone far beyond what was intended—not beyond the language, but beyond what was intended—by the relevant Section of last year's Finance Act.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has given powerful reasons for wishing not to support this Order unless satisfactory assurances are given on various points by


the Economic Secretary. I hope that we shall have those assurances tonight. In particular we should like to know what will be the actual position of Messrs. C. H. Bailey, a company which has not had a wholly untarnished reputation in its dealings in Malta.
It seems to me also that the key part of the Order is paragraph 6 (2). I should like to know from the Economic Secretary exactly how it will operate. How will the Government of Malta be able to exercise any control over the taxation of companies operating in those islands if the companies are also operating in the United Kingdom? Does it not remove control from them? Will the Economic Secretary tell us what action the incoming Government of Malta can take in that respect?
The most serious point that I have to raise is the whole question of tax avoidance by companies operating in underdeveloped areas which are not completely self-ruling. We now have as an example the position in British Guiana where the flight of capital and tax avoidance by companies operating there has had the effect of provoking disorders. I am sure that no hon. Member would want a similar situation to arise in the Maltese islands. We hope they will be able to develop towards independence by peaceful means without any quarrels, disturbances or conflicts about economic questions of this character.
But why are the Government introducing the Order at this time when an election is in progress in Malta? Why could they not have waited a few days until a new Government was installed and the party winning the election had had an opportunity of going over these most important points, which will affect the future of the islands very much more than they affect us? Frankly, I see no reason against deferring the Order another week or so to enable such consultations to take place.
I should like an assurance from the Economic Secretary that if the incoming Government in Malta are in disagreement with any paragraph or if there is any question about the way in which the Order will be interpreted after it is passed, they will have an opportunity to put forward their point of view and have an amending Order brought in to

deal with it. I hope we can have such an assurance, or we may have to cast our votes against the Order being passed in the form in which it is now presented to us.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Barber: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) asked halfway through his observations what the general intention of the Government was about future double taxation agreements.
I think it fair to say that since the end of the war it has been the objective of successive Governments to conclude as many double taxation agreements as possible, always provided, of course, that we were able to agree reasonably satisfactory terms with the other country. When one is considering the advantages and disadvantages to the United Kingdom and the other country of a double taxation agreement, it is relevant to bear in mind that the agreements sometimes come about as the result of considerable and prolonged negotiation and, consequently, one has to strike a balance. It may well be that in certain respects a particular provision in a double taxation agreement may be one that we would not have liked, if we could have avoided it. But, nevertheless, there has to be some quid pro quo.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to what my right hon. and learned Friend the erstwhile Solicitor-General said when in the course of last year's Finance Bill debates he dealt with the provisions for giving tax relief in this country in respect of taxes spared by a foreign country with whom we had concluded a double taxation agreement. I remember well what was said at that time, and I only wish that it were possible to give the House some meaningful figure of the cost which would be involved. But the fact is that it is simply not possible to give a precise estimate of the cost to the United Kingdom Exchequer of the tax sparing provisions of this agreement with Malta.
In fairness to my right hon. and learned Friend the then Solicitor-General, who always chose his words most carefully, he did say, and the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted him, that it "may" be possible to give an estimate of the cost. I am speaking from recollection, but I think that he


made the point in answer to a question by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Mitchison: Yes.

Mr. Barber: Regarding the likely cost of agreements which would or might be made under the Clause we were then debating, and again speaking from recollection, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend said that he could not answer that because the agreement had not at that stage been concluded, but he would do his best to see whether some estimate could be given at a later stage. I can tell the House that it is not expected that the net cost of this agreement is likely to be substantial.
I think it relevant for the House to bear in mind that in the absence of a double taxation agreement with any particular country, the United Kingdom, under the unilateral provisions to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred does normally give full credit for overseas taxes.

Mr. Mitchison: Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman would agree that the present Order costs something, even allowing for that.

Mr. Barber: I think that it is likely that it will cost something, although even on that point we cannot be sure, because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman fairly pointed out, although the tax-sparing provisions of the agreement will cost something to the United Kingdom Exchequer, there are certain items on the other side of the balance sheet. He mentioned perhaps the most important, and that is the provision in the agreement whereby British shipping and transport concerns are exempt from tax in the other country, that is to say in Malta. That, of course, has not been the case hitherto. Thus there will undoubtedly be some saving to the United Kingdom Exchequer on that account. But I think it fair to say, as did the hon. and learned Gentleman that this will involve some net cost to the United Kingdom Exchequer.
With regard to the economic position of Malta, nobody I think would disagree when I say that, despite the prosperity to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, Malta is still in need of considerable development. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the fact

that assistance had been provided by the United Kingdom and then pointed out that here we were trying to do something additional which would be a burden on the Exchequer. But surely exactly the same considerations apply to the agreement which we made not so long ago with Pakistan.

Mr. Mitchison: Surely the point here is that if this amount of money, whatever it is, had been given by way of direct assistance it would have benefited Malta. As it is, it benefits C. H. Bailey and others.

Mr. Barber: I was coming to the question of C. H. Bailey, because the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is normally very careful about the assertions he makes in the House, seemed to be proceeding on the assumption—and I have absolutely no information about this—that C. H. Bailey is to benefit from these provisions. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, even if I did know—which I do not—I could not give the House any information about a particular company or individual.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman has looked at Emergency Ordinance No. XXI of 1959. I received it only a few moments ago. Part IV, which deals with relief from Income Tax, and in which the provisions are set out for giving a tax holiday in certain circumstances, says that provision may be made for a tax holiday:
Where it appears to the Governor, after consultation with the Board,"—
that is the Industrial Development Board—
that the income derived by an industrialist … should be exempted … from the payment of income tax … subject to such conditions and the giving of such security as the Governor thinks fit.
I must stress that I have no knowledge at all of the position of C. H. Bailey. Even if I had, I could not disclose it, but I think that it is fair to say that these tax-sparing provisions are applied only in certain circumstances and not automatically.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) asked me a couple of questions. The first was on paragraph 6 (2) of the Agreement. I cannot see any difficulty arising there. The purpose of this sub-paragraph is to ensure


that United Kingdom companies which derive income from sources in Malta are protected against any form of undistributed Profits Tax which Malta might charge on this income in addition to the normal tax. I cannot see that this will involve any difficulty in practice. It may be that I did not understand the hon. Gentleman, but I think I followed him, and I cannot see any difficulty arising there.
The main point that he seemed to be making, and it is an important one, was really on the question of timing. This is a fair question, and in effect he asked whether the Government had some ulterior motive in concluding this Agreement at this time in relation to the elections. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that we have been trying to reach a double taxation agreement with the Maltese for, I think, about ten years.

Mr. Tom Driberg: With whom?

Mr. Barber: With whatever the constitutional party or authority is in Malta. I do not know what it is called.

Mr. Driberg: Does the hon. Gentleman really not know that Malta has been under direct colonial rule for several years? There is no party in power, and there will not be until after the elections.

Mr. Barber: If the hon. Gentleman looks into this he will find, as I have no doubt I would do if I had the opportunity of doing so, that constitutionally this is perfectly in order.
There was some suggestion that this was in some way being rushed through before the elections. This is not so. It is simply that we have been trying for at least ten years to reach an agreement, because these agreements may be concluded not only with a country which is independent and represented at the United Nations, but with any country which levies taxation of its own, because wherever there is a territory which levies taxation of its own, the question of double taxation arise. It is this and all that follows from it, that we are trying to avoid, and have successfully avoided.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the hon. Gentleman answer a question? He has spoken about consultation with the Maltese. Is he not aware that the only consultation

which has taken place in the last few years has been consultation between one hand of Her Majesty's Government and the other hand of Her Majesty's Government? How does that involve the Maltese?

Mr. Barber: Because the Maltese levy taxes and the taxes can be levied, for example, against a resident of the United Kingdom who carries on certain activities in Malta, or a resident of Malta who carries on certain activities in this country. Unless there are provisions whereby relief can be given inequity can occur. It is true that without this double taxation agreement the normal unilateral provisions would apply, but I think it is generally accepted nowadays that a double taxation agreement is far superior to the unilateral provisions so long as one can reach reasonable terms on all the issues involved.
Whatever the constitutional position may be, the fact is that the territory of Malta levies taxes quite distinct from those levied in this country. Both taxes can apply to the same person in respect of the same transaction. Consequently it is necessary that some provision should be made to avoid this double taxation.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: I am sorry if my intervention embarrassed the Economic Secretary. Obviously he was not very fully apprised of the circumstances in the Maltese islands, where an election has been taking place in the last few days.
I think that part of the misapprehension was caused by the words he chose to use. He said that these agreements always followed prolonged negotiations with the other country concerned. He also said that "the Maltese do this and that "and" the Maltese levy taxation". He kept on using the words," the Maltese", whereas in fact, as I expect by now he will have been told by the Parliamentary Private Secretary or someone, the Maltese are not in power in Malta, although they may be after today or tomorrow. When he says "the Maltese", he means the Colonial Office and the Governor. There has been direct colonial rule in Malta for the last three-and-a-half or four years. That is just a small correction.

Mr. Mark Woodnutt: I am sure that the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) will agree that, although Malta has been under Colonial Office administration since 1958, there were some six years before then when these negotiations were going on. During the last four years there have been four Maltese representatives of the Colonial Government, apart from the Governor and three permanent officials of the Treasury.

Mr. Driberg: If we failed to reach agreement with a genuinely Maltese Government for six years, an elected Government, surely there is all the stronger reason for not rushing through this particular Order on the very eve of a newly-elected Maltese Government taing office. The hon. Member has made a very strong point in our favour. The elected Maltese Government refused to, or could not, agree to the terms of a double taxation order similar to this one. That strengthens our criticism of the Order. My hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) pointed out that it is being rushed through while the votes are still being counted, as it were, in Malta.
There is a simple question I want to ask the Economic Secretary. I hope he will be able to answer this one; I am sure he will. In the Schedule to the Order, under paragraph I (1) it is said:
The taxes which are the subject of this Arrangement are:—

(a) In the United Kingdom (and hereinafter referred to as "United Kingdom tax").
(b) In the Island of Malta (and hereinafter referred to as "Malta tax"):

The income tax (including surtax).
Could he tell me, purely for information, if there is any Surtax in Malta? I rather doubt it somehow. I do not think the Archbishop allows it. If there is not any Surtax in Malta, ought we to have meaningless words in an Order presented for approval by this House?

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan: The point which has been made about entering into and ratifying the agreement at this time is a substantial point, and I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 16 of the Schedule in which we read,

This Arrangement shall continue in effect indefinitely but either of the Governments may, on or before the 30th June in any calendar year after the year 1964, give notice of termination to the other Government …
There is a legitimate point that if for any reason the newly-elected Government of Malta found that this kind of agreement was unsatisfactory, it would not be possible for them to terminate it earlier than 1964.
We require a little more convincing argument from the Economic Secretary about the timing of the Order. It may well be true that there have been negotiations and discussions for about ten years, but, as the hon. Member appreciates—and as he said when introducing the Order—a new element was introduced into the situation in the 1961 Finance Act in respect of taxation holidays. I should have thought that that new element in the situation was sufficiently radical to make a good deal of the previous negotiations rather out of date. I therefore think that the real negotiations for this agreement could have taken place only during the last year, and during the last year, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, there was government in Malta directly through the Colonial Office. I hope that the Economic Secretary will tell us a little more about the timing of the Order.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Barber: It is difficult to add to what I have said about timing. I have been frank with the House in saying that over the years we have been trying to reach agreement, sometimes with an authority operating under the Colonial Office and at other times, if the information given by hon. Members is correct, with an elected Maltese Government, but until this agreement we have been unsuccessful.
Dealing with the point made by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), the fact that we failed to reach an agreement with what he called the elected Maltese Government was, as I understand it, in the main due to the fact that at that time there was no provision in the Income Tax Acts which would enable us to give credit for taxes spared under a tax holiday system. This has been the principal stumbling block which has prevented us from reaching earlier agreement with—I previously said


the Maltese, but perhaps I should say "the authority for the time being responsible for the imposition of taxes".
The hon. Member for Barking also raised a very proper point about Maltese Surtax. He thought that he had caught me out, and I am bound to say that for one moment I thought he had, but I am happy to tell the House that Surtax in Malta is charged on individuals with total incomes exceeding £2,500 at progressive rates ranging from 2s. in the £ on the first £500 of the excess over £2,500 to 5s. in the £ on all incomes in excess of £4,000.

Mr. Mitchison: That will not hurt C. H. Bailey (Malta) Ltd. All I have said about those gentlemen was quoted from official publications to which the Economic Secretary has even readier access than I have. The only point on which he beat me was in getting a copy of the Maltese Ordinance.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not making a second speech.

Mr. Mitchison: With respect, I should have asked leave of the House. I think that the Economic Secretary made three separate speeches without asking the leave of the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is conventional.

Mr. Mitchison: I am a great respector of the conventions and if I have broken one I must apologise and ask the leave of the House to add one sentence. I had intended to ask leave to withdraw, but I must say to the Economic Secretary that I found the explanation not only rather reluctant but rather thin when it came and we must see what happens when the Question is put to the House.

Mr. William Ross: Did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) say he was going to ask leave to withdraw? What is he going to withdraw? This is an affirmative Motion.

Mr. Mitchison: That means only that I must apologise again.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Malta) Order, 1961, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 19th December.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — COAL CONSUMERS' COUNCILS (NORTHERN IRISH INTERESTS) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the appointment to the Industrial Coal Consumers' Council and the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council of persons to represent Northern Irish interests, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of such moneys by way of remuneration, allowances and expenses payable by the Minister under subsection (6) of section four of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946.—[Mr. Wood.]

11.1 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I am disappointed that we have had no explanation of this Money Resolution. We could have appreciated this had it come after a lengthy day discussing the principle of the Bill which it is intended to support, but we have had no such thing. It would have been a serious matter for the House of Commons, and particularly for hon. Members opposite who have been proclaiming their interest in Government expenditure, had they allowed the Resolution to go through without any word of explanation, bearing in mind that the Second Reading was taken without a word being said about it. I am shocked that the vigilance which is so often proclaimed by hon. Members opposite is just as often absent when it comes to the point of action.
I do not doubt that the Money Resolution is desirable. I have to extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark), who produced the Private Member's Bill, that


he has been able to persuade the Government to put down a Money Resolution. It means that he has Government support for his Bill. I hope that in raising the matter, I will not be thought to be carping in saying that the hon. Member concerned has been evincing a considerable interest in Scottish housing and has become a colleague of mine in the Scottish Standing Committee, but that so far all he has done is to vote with the Government to closure the Labour Members.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I hope my hon. Friend will not forget that the hon. Member has been reading the Northern Irish newspapers in Committee, too.

The Chairman: Order. All these references to that Committee are quite out of order here.

Mr. Ross: I was about to say that, Sir William—quite out of order.
I presume that what is meant by
any Act of the present Session
would be taken more specifically to mean the Private Member's Bill, the Coal Consumers' Councils (Northern Irish Interests) Bill. Reading further, we find that the purpose of the Money Resolution is
to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of such moneys by way of remuneration, allowances and expenses payable by the Minister.
It means that if and when the Bill gets the sanction of Parliament, we shall have people Who are called upon to represent Northern Ireland interests on the Industrial Coal Consumers' Council and the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council and that they will have to be paid remuneration. They may have to be paid allowances and expenses and the United Kingdom Parliament, through the Minister of Power, will have to foot the bill.
It is logical that I should ask how many people will be involved and whether the language of the Money Resolution is sufficiently wide to meet the needs of the Bill, and, indeed, the needs of the Bill as it may eventually be amended. I am interested in the phrase "to represent Northern Irish interests." I know that it would be out

of order fully to discuss the Bill. It refers, however, to people in Northern Ireland and their interests, but that is not quite the case. This arrangement is not on parallel lines with the consumers' council and the interests concerned in the rest of the United Kingdom.
In Great Britain, of course, there is normally no sea passage for coal, but here we are concerned with the supply of coal and manufactured fuel from either England or Scotland to Northern Ireland and also with the interests concerned in that supply. It is not merely consumers who are involved, but those organising or effecting the supply and sale, who must be remunerated and have expenses and allowances paid.
These people are not necessarily in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will remember being questioned by other Ayrshire Members and me when all the supplies of coal for Northern Ireland, formerly sent from Ayrshire, were, by a decision made without reference to the Northern Ireland consumers, sent from England. It meant loss of employment in Ayrshire and in the dockyard in Ayr, and the Burns Laird Shipping Company removed its ships from Ayr altogether. These people were concerned in organising the supply of coal for Northern Ireland. I d not know whether the Money Resolution is wide enough to permit those people, either in England or Scotland, to be represented on those two consumers' councils.
This is a very important point, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pay some attention to it in his Bill. If I interpret the Resolution correctly, it is even wider than the terms of the Bill, although the Bill may be defective. I want to make sure that this point can be covered by way of an Amendment to the' Bill. If we allow the Money Resolution to go through and it transpires that its reference to Northern Ireland interests applies only to people in Northern Ireland, we may be denied the opportunity to amend the Bill in order to ensure that those interests which are not in Northern Ireland but which are organising the supply of industrial and domestic fuel for Northern Ireland will not be denied representation "on these councils.
Then we come to the phrase:
it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase 
and so on. We are entitled to know the extent to which that provision will apply. No sum is fixed. We ought not to give the Minister a blank cheque to spend as he likes, especially when he is under attack from hon. Members below the Gangway opposite—although they are strangely absent this evening. They usually evince great interest in these matters, but their desire to carry out their public duty apparently disappears at 10.45 at night. We should like to know how much the remuneration, allowances and expenses are likely to be.
This should not be difficult to ascertain. We have a basis upon which to judge. We know the remuneration, allowances and expenses paid to members of these two councils at present. They will probably be more if the people have to come from the fastnesses of Northern Ireland.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: The slownesses.

Mr. Ross: The fastnesses or the slownesses. We want to know whether this will affect the position of the Coal Board in any way, or whether the money comes from the Vote of the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I know that I should have looked up the relevant Section of the relevant Act, but I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will be only too happy to enlighten me.

Mr. William Hannan: I should like to support the expression of surprise by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) at this Money Resolution and the lack of interest in its provisions.
I should like also to express this doubt. While I do not quarrel with the right of Northern Ireland to be represented on these councils, I wonder, when it is proposed further to extend them, whether the outlays of money will in fact be worth while. I have the last two Reports of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council beside me. I wonder whether the council is earning its corn and whether we are getting from it our money's worth. I put a Question only yesterday to the Minister asking him if

he would consider the appointment of a domestic coal consumers' council in Scotland. I think it is for the Minister seriously to consider further moneys being spent on this council when at the end of the day it may be found better to have a council in Northern Ireland. In Scotland, we badly need a council.
Consider the distances which have to be travelled. It is farther from London to Belfast by road than it is to Glasgow or Edinburgh. It is some 400 miles odd to Stranraer and only 359 miles to Glasgow or Edinburgh. If someone in Glasgow wants to complain about bad coal, where does he complain to? Millbank, in London, to the same office as that in which the Minister is housed. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that we should get our money's worth from the council and see whether we are, because I cannot convince many people in Glasgow that the best way of dealing with their complaints, which they cannot get rectified on the spot, is to send a letter to London, wait a fortnight for a reply, and find, by that time, that the coal has all disappeared, the coal man has got his money, and no one can deal with the matter. A more expeditious method is needed for dealing with complaints made by consumers.

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member is going rather farther than the Money Resolution. To argue the merits of a consumers' council at all would be outside this debate.

Mr. Hannan: I did not intend to speak very long on the matter at all, and I would ask the Minister to consider this Money Resolution in respect of Northern Irish interests. We of course admit their right to representation, but at the same time—

Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order. I am very concerned about this point. While I would not question your Ruling, Sir William, nevertheless I should have thought that if we were to conclude that these councils were not worth the money which is being spent on them it would be legitimate for us to raise those doubts at this stage. If we were to conclude this to be so, surely we should in those circumstances be opposed to this extension of these facilities to Northern Ireland. Is it not in order to express some doubts


about the worth-whileness of these councils?

The Chairman: What can be said in passing is another thing, but it is not in order on a Money Resolution to discuss the general principle of the Bill to which it is related. I thought that that was what was happening.

Mr. Hannan: I think it will be in order, since Section 4 (6) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, is mentioned in the Money Resolution, to refer to that subsection, under which
The said councils shall be furnished by the Minister with such clerks, officers and staff as appear to him, with the concurrence of the Treasury as to numbers …
I should like to ask whether, if this Money Resolution is accepted, that fact would mean an increase in such staffs and such officers and how much money would be involved.
The subsection also provides that it is
…requisite for the proper discharge of their functions …
that whoever may be the Minister
shall pay to the members of the said councils such allowances, and to the clerks, officers and staff of the said councils such remuneration and allowances, as he may with the approval of the Treasury determine …
As I understand, there are twenty-five members of the Industrial Consumers' Council, and thirty-two on the Domestic Consumers' Council. By how many will each of these councils be increased?

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: And by how many will the staffs be increased?

Mr. Hannan: Yes, and the staffs. From where will the staffs be recruited? As I understand, I think that the staff which mans the councils serves the Minister's own department as civil servants. If that is so, how does the Minister explain the way in which they act on behalf of the consumers while, at the same time, they are employees of the Ministry?
These are relevant questions and I should be glad if we could begin a better and fuller understanding of what is meant by the provisions of this Money Resolution.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: There is one phrase in this

Money Resolution which I have seen in this House many times; but here it causes me some disquiet. It is the phrase that "it is expedient". I could, in the present context, have understood it if the Minister had said "inevitable" or "necessary", but whether it is expedient in the widest sense I begin to wonder. The Committee will recall that we have, from time to time, had the greatest difficulty in securing the attendance of hon. Members from Northern Ireland because they have in some way been receiving money provided by Parliament as part of their remuneration for the jobs they have taken on.
It will be recalled that there was a whole succession of seats declared vacant; by-election followed by-election and at one time it seemed impossible …

The Chairman: It is difficult to relate what the hon. Member is now saying to what is in the Money Resolution.

Mr. Parkin: The Money Resolution states that
… it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament …
the expenses of public-spirited citizens of Northern Ireland who will act as members of the coal consumers' councils; and, remembering the disastrous record of the Unionist Party of Northern Ireland and its failure to do what it should do—even tonight none of its members is here to argue this case—I should have thought it was certainly not expedient to pay moneys provided by Parliament, thus reducing the number of public-spirited people who would be able to stand for Parliament.
I should have thought that these public-spirited citizens who would be the right type to stand for Parliament and represent the real interests of Northern Ireland—

The Chairman: There is nothing about hon. Members standing for Parliament in this. We are concerned with coal consumers' councils.

Mr. Parkin: The Money Resolution is directed to paying to a small number of people in Northern Ireland money which is provided by Parliament; money for taking part in public work.
The practice of paying to citizens of Northern Ireland expenses out of


moneys provided by Parliament has brought unfortunate results in more cases than one. I would have hoped that the Government would have given some consideration to this danger so that we should not be faced with the sort of situation which caused so much embarrassment before—I have cited it as one example—when Members of Parliament could not be found. I am very much in favour of the citizens of Northern Ireland participating in all public activities, but I hope that this will not result in their being prevented from taking on further and more responsible work here.

Mr. Stratton Mills: It had not been my intention to make a lengthy intervention, but the speech of the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), in whose constituency a great many Southern Irishmen live, has no doubt been heard widely by hon. Members.
I should be out of order in following the hon. Member in many of the points that he raised. It is, of course, well known that he has no great love for Northern Ireland. It is not surprising that he takes the attitude that he does to the Money Resolution. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that on the passing of the Ireland Act, in 1949, the hon. Member was one of the group of Labour Members who were censured by the Prime Minister—

The Chairman: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) has been tempted to reply to what has been said from the other side of the Committee, but he must not go as far as he is going.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I apologise, Sir William. I realise that I am out of order, and I am fully repentant.
The hon. Gentleman's argument amounted to the fact that the Money Resolution should not be supported because of the difficulties that there had been in certain by-elections about offices of profit. I cannot follow him in that argument, and I am not attempting to answer it fully because it would be out of order to do so. I merely say that I think he has used the Money Resolution as a thinly veiled opportunity to attack Northern Ireland generally.
With those few words, I leave to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) the task of dealing more fully with the provisions in the Money Resolution.

Mr. E. G. Willis: The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) had been heard widely by hon. Members. He has not been heard widely by the sponsors of the Bill. There are only two Northern Ireland Members present.

Mr. Stratton Mills: No doubt the hon. Gentleman has overlooked an hon. Friend of mine sitting on the Government Front Bench—one of the Whips.

Mr. Willis: At all events, there is a notable absence of hon. Members from Northern Ireland who might have been expected to be present to support this Motion.

Mr. Ross: That is not unusual.

Mr. Willis: I am confident that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark), the sponsor of the Bill, must be gratified at the interest shown in the Bill by Scottish hon. Members. I hope he appreciates the manner in which we are repaying him for the very excellent service that he has given us elsewhere. This is really a quid pro quo. We are assisting him to get information which we know will be invaluable to him when it comes to fight the Bill line by line, Clause by Clause, through its Committee stage.

The Chairman: Order. We are not discussing the fighting of the Bill line by line, Clause by Clause, now. We are discussing only the Money Resolution.

Mr. Willis: Those were a few preliminary remarks, Sir William. I am now coming to the exact wording of the Money Resolution.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North, I had marked on my Order Paper the word "expedient". I could not understand the word "expedient" which I thought meant that it was wise in the circumstances. Why should it be wise in the circumstances to do this? Surely we are agreeing to the provision of money not because it is expedient, but because we think that it


is necessary or right to do so. I here-fore, I think that the Resolution is badly worded and should state that the payment of the money is authorised and not that it is expedient. Unfortunately, one cannot amend a Money Resolution, otherwise we might have had one which was much better worded than the one on the Order Paper.
A number of pertinent questions have been asked. The Bill has not been discussed and I am not complaining about that. The hon. Members concerned want it and I should be the last to quarrel with their desire. But we ought to be told to what we are committed by the Bill in terms of finance. Most of the questions have been asked, but in case any have been omitted I will run quickly through the questions which I wish to ask and the hon. Gentleman can tabulate his answers so that we know where we are when we consider the Bill in its later stages.
Clause 1(1, a) deals with the Industrial Coal Consumers' Council, and trades appointed to it. How many is it suggested will be appointed and what will be the cost? I think that that is a fair question. What will be the cost in remuneration, allowances and expenses? Paragraph (b) of the same subsection deals with the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council and, again, I ask the same questions. I am sure that they can be answered by the combined wisdom of the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary. It is a pity that we have not a representative of the Treasury present—

Mr. Ross: Or the Lord Advocate.

Mr. Willis: If we had the Lord Advocate here, we should be here for a long time.
I think that the Parliamentary Secretary, for whom I have a great respect can give us the answers. When we get them we shall be able to make up our minds whether this important Money Resolution should be supported.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Henry Clark: I am charmed that so many hon. Members have stayed up so late to consider one section of this small but important Bill which I had the privilege of presenting to the House. I also thank my right hon.

Friend the Minister for bringing in this Money Resolution so promptly, and showing that the Government are giving my Measure their support.
I was intrigued by the argument of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), that the Bill might lead to the dockers of Ayr being represented on the coal consumers' councils.

Mr. Ross: They no longer have any interest in this because, like so many honourable things in Scotland, it has been transferred south of the Border.

Mr. Clark: That is the point I was trying to make. That is the point that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies have made more than once, and I remember the Parliamentary Secretary once answering an Adjournment debate on this subject. We want to be allowed to buy coal from Ayr, and I am sure that this is one of the first things that the representatives of the coal consumers' council will bring up.
We have a coal consumers' council in Northern Ireland, and we hope that when these members are appointed they will act as a liaison between Belfast and London.
Northern Ireland is a good customer for the coal mined in England, Scotland and Wales. When we come over to discuss whether to buy coal, and how much we will buy, we are continually tempted to buy other forms of fuel. When men come to buy something, it is wise to be as nice as possible to them, and I think that the small amount of money which the Government gives to a small number of people, possibly to one representative of each council, might result in good business for the Coal Board and for the Government.
I am pleased at the interest the Bill has aroused, and I hope that it will be approved by the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) is deeply touched by the immense interest shown in his small Bill by Scottish hon. Members. It is unfortunate that one Scottish hon. Member charged Northern Ireland hon. Members with failing to attend the debate to look after the Bill, because they are well represented here this evening, as they generally are.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said that he had several points to raise, and asked me to note them particularly. I did that. In fact, I had noted them down when they were made by the two previous speakers. One speech was made by three hon. Members from Scotland, but that is not unusual. I am sure that they have enjoyed their evening out.
This is a small Bill, but it has been raised to enormous heights by the attendance of the eminent hon. Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), and for Edinburgh, East. They asked several questions, as they were entitled to do. If the hon. Member for Kilmarnock had not been so fast in seizing the Floor he would have had all his questions answered without asking them.
This Money Resolution is necessary because the Northern Ireland representatives whom the Minister will have power to appoint if the Bill becomes law will be able to claim the repayment of their travelling and other expenses.
It has been asked how many members will be appointed. The numbers have not been fixed, but it may be that two will be appointed to each council. If, in arriving at the cost, we assume that two members will be appointed to each council, and that they attend five meetings each year, it is estimated that the total claim for expenses will probably not exceed £500 per annum, and that is the total amount of money to be covered by this Money Resolution.
The Bill will not involve any other expenditure, as council members receive neither allowances nor remuneration. Nor is it expected that any increase in staff will be required to deal with the new members coming from Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Maryhill suggested, the staff for both councils is supplied by the Ministry. Throughout the years this arrangement has worked well. He questioned the value of the domestic consumers' councils. Their members are men and women of public spirit who travel long distances to serve the interests of their councils.
It is wrong, if one is not fully informed about the work of these councils, to infer that they are useless parts of the organisation. They are very useful parts

of the organisation and have served an effective purpose in recent years. The hon. Member suggested that a coal consumers' council should be appointed to Northern Ireland. It is always an advantage to learn the facts of a situation before raising a matter in the House. I am glad to say that he was informed that such a council was formed—

Mr. Willis: He was also informed that that was out of order.

Mr. George: The hon. Member was not well-informed in what he said. The members who come from Northern Ireland to the industrial or coal consumers' council will be dealing with coal in so far as production and carriage to the ports are affected. They will not be concerned with anything that happens to the coal after it leaves the port. That is the business of the Northern Ireland Government and we do not want any conflict between the two.
This is a small Bill, involving the country in very small expenditure. It will give Northern Ireland people the satisfaction of knowing that their representatives are handling issues which concern them in London in concert with representatives from Scotland and England. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North said that Northern Ireland is a very valuable customer of Scotland. We want to see that continue and we want to see complaints dealt with to their satisfaction. They are dealt with already even without representatives from Northern Ireland, but people in Northern Ireland will feel that their interests are in better hands if their own people, through the passage of the Bill, are allowed to serve on the council, as I hope they will be. The expenses incurred will be a very small amount.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: In correcting my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), who made a request for the setting up of a regional consumers' council, the Parliamentary Secretary said that there is already a coal consumers' council in Northern Ireland. But that council was not appointed under the 1946 Act. Surely it is a fact that the Minister's writ does not run in Northern Ireland under the 1946 Act. Only by the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) will the


Minister of Power be given any responsibility to make appointments from Northern Ireland.
It is rather odd that the Minister should have extended his authority to that part of the United Kingdom which is not within Great Britain by means of adopting the proposals contained in a Private Member's Bill and coming before Parlament for Parliament's sanction for the Minister's participation by way of the Money Resolution now before this Committee.
It seems to me that the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Mary-hill sought to make was very apt, because Section 4 (9) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, provides for the setting up of regional councils at the discretion of the Minister. The Minister has not chosen to set up regional councils, although he was advised by the consumers' council to do so and has been pressed by my hon. Friend to do so. I think that this is in order, Sir William, because if we provide by this Money Resolution that the Minister shall be enabled out of moneys provided by Parliament to finance the appointment of members to represent Northern Irish interests on the two consumers' councils, may we not be making it a great deal more difficult for him to exercise the powers which he has under Section 4 (9) of the 1946 Act, upon which recommendations have been made to him by the consumers' council?
In any case, will the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that the Government have created this situation by supporting the Bill, as they have done by putting down the Money Resolution? The Bill has not been discussed. When it came before the House on Second Reading, quite understandably many hon. Members who might have wished to discuss it felt in no need to stand in the way of the Second Reading because it could not be put into effect without a Money Resolution. This is, therefore, the first opportunity we have had of discussing it.
The Money Resolution gives the Minister power to use moneys provided by Parliament to make possible the implementation of the Private Member's Bill which seeks to secure that persons will be appointed to these consumers'

councils to represent Northern Irish interests". But there is no provision in the parent Act for the interests of any part of England or of Wales or of Scotland to be looked after, and there is a great feeling in Scotland that the interests of Scotland cannot be looked after, and are not being looked after, under the present set-up.

The Chairman: Order. It is not easy to establish what is in order and what is not, but this Money Resolution cannot affect the interests of Scotland in respect of the Industrial Coal Consumers' Council, and, therefore, it is not in order to pursue further that line of argument on this Irish Money Resolution.

Mr. Hannan: On a point of order. If it were in order for the Minister to allude to my remarks about the Industrial Coal Consumers' Council and to say that apparently I did not know about it—when I did—is it not in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) to refer not to the Industrial Council, but to the Domestic Consumers' Council, to which I referred and the true position of which is apparently not understood by the Parliamentary Secretary?

The Chairman: Much can be done by short reference, but one must not take these matters too far.

Mr. Fraser: I realise that the time for the debate is limited, but I thought that I was making the point fairly clear. On Second Reading of the Bill we did not know whether the Minister would put down a Money Resolution. We could not possibly know whether the Minister would back the Bill. But by putting down the Money Resolution he has made it clear that he is anxious that Northern Irish interests should be represented on these two consumers' councils when no other part of the country is so represented.
I fear that the adoption of the Measure will make it more difficult for the Minister to exercise the powers which he has under Section 4 (9) to set up regional councils, which is the only way in which the interests of the consumers can properly be represented. Will the Parliamentary Secretary give some assurances on these matters?

11.45 p.m.

Mr. George: Earlier, every speaker welcomed the Bill and welcomed the possibility that representatives from Northern Ireland would come to serve on these two councils. The advantages are equal for both parties. They will be able to discuss with the Coal Board in London their problems and difficulties.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has raised the question of the appointment of regional consumers' councils. There is no proposal to appoint such councils. The Minister is satisfied that the work is well done by the councils as they now operate and that the interests of the whole country are well served by the industrial and domestic consumers' councils at present in being and operating a system which has prevailed for so long.

It being Fourteen minutes to Twelve o'clock, three-quarters of an hour after the House had resolved itself into the Committee, The CHAIRMAN put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 1A (Exemptions from Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)).

Question agreed to.

Resolution to he reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PLANNING APPLICATION (MESSRS. HARRIS AND SHELDON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

11.47 p.m.

Mr. John Storehouse: The case of Harris and Sheldon is not by any means the only example of a firm being denied the opportunity of improving its factory so that it can improve productivity and efficiency and put itself in a position not only of securing lower costs of operation but also of being more successful in the export trade.
I could refer to several examples of firms in my constituency who have been refused opportunities to redevelop existing factories which could be much improved if they had industrial development certificates without, however, adding in any way to the number of staff

employed. In a number of cases the number of staff could well be reduced and it would make a contribution to the well-being of the country as a whole if these improvements were allowed to be made.
In what I say about this case I do not want in any way to throw doubt upon the wisdom of allocating factories and persuading firms to move to areas of high unemployment. There is a very strong case for it and I wholly support whatever efforts are made to encourage development in the areas where new factories need to be opened. But I think that the Board of Trade, in its administration of these provisions, has failed to realise that it is not only a question of getting new industry into the areas of high unemployment, but also of allowing established industries in the old industrial areas, like the Black Country, to improve and revitalise themselves so that they are in a position to put new techniques into operation and also to reduce costs and generally be more successful.
The firm of Harris and Sheldon is asking not to build a new factory in Willenhall, but to extend a factory which it built only eight years ago. It is asking to do this so that it can close down derelict premises in another area of Willenhall in Charles Holland Street. By doing so it will be able to co-ordinate its production in one unit. This will enable the firm to be more efficient. It will be able probably to do with less labour, it will be able to reduce costs, and it will be able to improve the conditions of employment of its employees and my constituents. It will be able to make a contribution to the national productivity drive.
I could undersand the reluctance of the President of the Board of Trade if this were an application for a new factory, but it is not. It is an application for an extension of a factory for which a certificate was granted in 1953. If the President of the Board of Trade feels so strongly about the allocation of certificates in the older industrial areas like my constituency, why did he allow Harris and Sheldon to build the new factory eight years ago? Surely he should have put his foot down then and insisted that this firm go to an area of likely high unemployment. But he did not. He


allowed the firm to develop there, and now, very reasonably in my opinion, the firm is asking that its production should be co-ordinated in one factory rather than having to operate in two units separated by a mile and a half.
I have been to the site of the new factory and I have also been round the old factory in Charles Holland Street and I can assure the House that there is no question of any land being used for the extension of the Harris and Sheldon factory which is not already in the firm's possession, and which could possibly be used for any other purpose. It is, in fact, a site between the new factory and the main road. There could be no other use for this land. It seems to me really quite shortsighted in the Board of Trade to stand in the way of this firm's developing this land which it controls and which could be available for no other use.
In the area many new factories have been developed, and nobody in Willenhall can understand just how the Board of Trade operates on this. Some applications are approved, many are turned down, and some of the most worthy applications, in my opinion—and I have gone into several of them very closely—are turned down; and I should like on a future occasion to go into the reasons for that. But we understand from the then President of the Board of Trade, the present Colonial Secretary, from a communication which he addressed to me last April, that the building of this extra extension of the factory
is not simply a question of a more economic arrangement of production.
On what basis is this statement made? What investigations has the Board of Trade made into the operations of this firm? What right has it to put such a point of view in front of the Minister for signature? It is a question of securing proper methods of production and a better economic arrangement of the firm's production. There is no other question for the firm's application.
The President of the Board of Trade went on to say that the approval of this application would almost certainly mean that the Charles Holland Street premises would be taken over by another industrial user. What ground is there for that

statement? Did the Board of Trade consult the firm and ask it whether it intended to sell this site to somebody else? The factory on this site is in a terrible state. I have been round it, and I know that the working conditions are far from satisfactory. The timber used in the work of Harris and Sheldon has to be humped around the place. There is no room for mechanical handing equipment, and extra men have to be used for manhandling jobs. If the Board of Trade were to ask the firm to agree that this factory should be shut down completely if the other factory site was developed, the firm might well agree. I ask the Minister what approaches have been made to the firm on that point.
The firm is involved in making equipment which, in itself, helps achieve higher productivity in the British retail trade. Much of this equipment is finding its way into the larger, well-known multiple organisations and co-operative societies, helping to improve the layouts of the shops and to achieve higher productivity, especially in self-service shops, food halls and supermarkets. It is making a real contribution to a more effective use of manpower in Britain. It is helping to reduce costs and also, eventually, to reduce prices to consumers. I should have thought that it was doing a wholly worthy job.
I have an extract from The Times which describes the objects of the National Productivity Year, which is due to begin next November. According to Mr. Harry Douglass, the Chairman of the British Productivity Council, this will be the biggest co-operative effort ever made by British industry. Its scope is tremendous, its potential enormous, and its urgency unchallengable. At a Press conference, Mr. Douglass said:
I am disturbed that in Britain productivity is levelling off and I want that process to be reversed. If it is not reversed, I cannot get higher wages for my people, shareholders cannot get decent dividends, and the employers will have a much more difficult job.
The object of the National Productivity Year—which begins at the end of the year, although that is no reason why we should not anticipate it; I am sure the Minister will agree—is to foster a more favourable climate of opinion to better


methods and their proper use in industry and the community. The Prime Minister has said:
On living standards now and our hopes for the future depend on a continuous increase in the efficiency of all the work we do.
To this end, the company is trying to make a contribution. It wants two separate units to be co-ordinated into one. It wants its new factory to be extended so that productivity can be improved, so that the workers can get more out for a given number of hours' work and so that the firm can operate far more successfully than if it has to have an inefficient, out-of-date derelict building in another part of the town. Surely, this is a real contribution to achieving better productivity.
Rather than Ministers paying lip service to the National Productivity Year, they would be serving the country better if they gave far more detailed attention to applications by firms in my constituency, like Harris and Sheldon, so that they can improve their techniques and their productivity and contribute to the National Productivity Year. It is not good enough just to have these words. Press conferences will get us nowhere. We must have action.
In my constituency, there are many small firms that are being hamstrung by the Board of Trade, which will not allow them to develop their factories, to build new factories on existing sites and to redevelop and revitalise their processes, which would make a good contribution to better productivity and the lowering of costs, export prices and all the rest.
I do not want the Minister to say that the Board of Trade is interested only in the areas of high unemployment. Firms in my constituency are already making a contribution to providing employment in the areas of high unemployment. Only last week, a new unit was developed at Caerphilly. Several others are developing in the North-East and in North Wales. Firms in my constituency, from Wednesbury as well as Willenhall, are moving to the areas of high unemployment.
We do not, however, want the areas which are left behind—the solid industrial areas like the Black Country, which have made such a wonderful contribution to our industrial success—to be neglected. Therefore, I appeal to the

Minister to look again at this case and to consider it in all seriousness, because he at least has the word of one Member of Parliament who has gone into it in great detail that this is a very worthy application indeed.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: I am grateful to have a few moments in which to comment on some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house). I represent a constituency in the north-east of England where there are still, I regret to say, a considerable number of pockets of unemployment. As far as anyone can see within reason, the control of industrial development certificates is the most effective way in which we can bring new work to areas of high unemployment.
I do not quarrel with the hon. Member for Wednesbury in his tribute to the Black Country and its contribution to the nation's economy and prosperity. I am sure that the firm of Harris and Sheldon is an excellent firm. I intervene to suggest that the Government are right at this time, whilst we still have pockets of unemployment in such areas as the north-east of England, to refuse the issue of this requested certificate.
Earlier to-day, as on many other occasions, hon. Members opposite who represent constituencies in the northeast of England directed quite a vocal campaign at my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, suggesting that he and the Government are not doing enough to bring employment to the north-east of England. I suggest that hon. Members opposite who represent north-eastern constituencies might well have been in their place for this debate. Of course, they are not here. I do not know where they are. Presumably, because the hour is late, they have gone to bed. They ought to have been in their place to object to the suggestion which has been made by their hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury that an industrial development certificate be issued in an area of full employment.
If the hon. Member for Wednesbury really wishes to help this firm to expand, he might well consult with a former hon. Member of this House who represented Stockton-on-Tees, Mr. George Chetwynd, who is now the General Director of the


North-East Development Association. If he did that he would be able to carry back to this excellent firm in the Midlands the certainty that it would be very welcome in the North-East, where there is labour and every other facility available, and where the firm could do a great deal to overcome our unemployment problem.

12.6 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson):: The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) has availed himself of his undoubted right to raise a matter in which a constituent of his feels aggrieved by the decision of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in refusing to grant an industrial development certificate for the expansion of premises in Willenhall for the construction of which a certificate was originally given in 1953.
There is no doubt about his right to do so, but whether the best way of dealing with a matter of this kind is on the Floor of the House is another matter. I would only say that the hon. Gentleman has not availed himself of the usual method of dealing with a problem in which an hon. Member has not obtained satisfaction through correspondence, namely, to discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend or myself.

Mr. Stonehouse: There has been correspondence about this matter going back over the last twelve months, but the hon. Member's right hon. Friend has refused to budge an inch; that was so, also, at Question Time today, so a debate on the Adjournment was the only course open to me.

Mr. Macpherson: I hope that the hon. Member will not interrupt again on a point like that, because I have already said that if he was dissatisfied with correspondence he could have discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend or myself. He asks what investigations have been made by the Board of Trade, and suggests that no detailed attention has been given to this matter. I assure him that very close attention has been paid to it.
There is no dispute that Messrs. Harris and Sheldon is a well-known and reputable firm of shopfitters, established in

Birmingham for nearly ninety years. It has not provided just a local service. I understand that the business extends over the country. The hon. Gentleman says that this firm wishes to improve its efficiency and reduce its costs by moving from its premises in Charles Holland Street to a new extension of the premises in Bilston Road. That the premises in Charles Holland Street are old and inefficient is not a matter which is in dispute. Indeed, that is precisely why this firm was given an industrial development certificate in 1953 for 48,000 square feet; it was so that the firm could move out of those premises into new and up-to-date premises. The firm itself stressed the need for rehousing.
The fact, however, is that the firm built the premises for which it had obtained the certificate, but did not move from the old premises. No doubt its business expanded more than had been expected, but we cannot ignore this fact. It is extremely doubtful whether the Board of Trade would have granted the certificate at Willenhall in 1953 had it been known that the firm would go on using the premises at Charles Holland Street. Indeed, even before the certificate was given, an attempt was made to get the firm to move all its activities to a Birmingham overspill area. If the overspill policy is to succeed, industry must move out, as well as population; and if the distribution of industry policy is to succeed, industry must move out to the development districts. It was only because the proposed development at that time involved an exchange of new premises for old rather than a major expansion that the industrial development certificate was granted.
The firm has been treated generously. In 1958, it was given an industrial development certificate for a factory of 85,000 sq. ft. at Perry Barr to rehouse its works at Stafford Street, Birmingham. But since then pressure on our labour resources in the Midlands has grown. The hon. Gentleman well knows how anxious his own hon. Friends in the North-East and in Scotland are for new industry. A resolution was passed at the Scottish T.U.C. conference in Scotland last weekend calling on the Government to direct industry to Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman's party had been in power this firm could have been


directed to go to Scotland—or the North-East, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) has suggested—not to go there under direction, but to go there. Under such a policy, no doubt the firm could have been directed there.
The hon. Gentleman says that in this case and in others the grant of the industrial development certificate would reduce costs and make firms more efficient and more competitive in export. Superficially, this may be so, but unless one can reduce the inflationary pressure in these areas costs go on mounting, and that is the thing which industrialists sometimes leave out of account in calculating whether they will save the cost of moving from the area where they are at present to another, or of moving to a development district.

Mr. Stonehouse: Wages go up.

Mr. Macpherson: For example, the Toothill Report has shown that in Scotland, by and large, the cost of production and distribution is not higher than it is in other areas. Both because of the needs of areas of high unemployment and because of the inflationary pressure generated by the shortage of labour in areas where vacancies exceed unemployment—it is not just for the former reason—the Government have adopted a tougher industrial development certificate policy than hitherto. The Board of Trade has a statutory obligation to try to get as much new industry as possible to the development districts. No one will deny the need for that. At the same time, we seek to reduce the pressure of further industrial development in the areas which are already industrially congested and short of labour.
We have to certify that the development in question can be carried out consistently with the proper distribution of industry, and the test there is not so much on costs as on labour, because if one makes too great demands on scarce labour one is going to put up costs. Our refusal to grant another industrial development certificate for the firm's proposed expansion at Bilston Road was

in accordance with that policy. Willenhall, like the rest of the Midlands conurbation, is an area of labour shortage. The rate of unemployment in January was only 0·8 per cent., compared with the national average of 1·9 per cent. and 4·5 per cent. for development districts.
The hon. Gentleman claims that the grant of an industrial development certificate in this case would result in a saving of labour. On the face of it, that is so. But there is no doubt that the number of people employed at Charles Holland Street and Bilston Road combined is far in excess of the number employed in 1953 at Charles Holland Street alone. If the move is made from Charles Holland Street to Bilston Road the company says that it will transfer only 75 people out of 150. But what is to become of the premises at Charles Holland Street?
The hon. Member asks what approaches have been made to Harris and Sheldon on that point. That point was put in correspondence with the hon. Member. Did he pass that on? If the firm disposed of the premises, they could be used by the purchaser to employ even more people than at the present time. We have to look at the total quantity of labour to be employed resulting from the development in question.
What I must emphasise is that it is our duty to try to steer industrial developments away from the congested areas to the areas where labour is available. Not all expansion can take place elsewhere. There are questions of raw material supplies, distribution and management. But we have to be satisfied that they cannot and we are not so satisfied in this case. Harris and Sheldon is an expanding firm with a nation-wide market. It should be capable of establishing a unit in the North-East or the Glasgow area. In the long term it would be very much to the advantage of the firm to set up now in an area in which future expansion should cause no problems.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter past Twelve o'clock.